MOTOR OIL ENGINEERING TEST DATA

by 540 RAT

.
.
.
.
On smart phones, “Q&A” CAN NOW BE ACCESSED BY CLICKING ON THE 3 HORIZONTAL BARS IN THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER
.
.
.
.
.
******
.
.
With so many different Blog readers coming here from all over the world, there are probably many readers who have no idea why my Internet name/handle is 540 RAT.

The reason is, it is a reference to my most powerful 800 horsepower engine, which I built myself from the ground up, to my own specifications.

540 = 540 cubic inch displacement (8.9L)

RAT = The nickname for Chevrolet’s Traditional Classic “Big Block” V-8 engine

So, 540 RAT means 540 cubic inch, Big Block Chevy (BBC)

And in comparison, the nickname for Chevrolet’s Traditional Classic “Small Block” V-8 engine is MOUSE.

A “Big Block” Classic Chevy V-8 engine is called a RAT motor.

A “Small Block” Classic Chevy V-8 engine is called a MOUSE motor.
.
.
******

The date June 20, 2013 just above, is the date this Blog was first started, NOT the date of the information included. It is regularly updated with the latest information, as indicated by the date several paragraphs below.

NOTE: The motor oil wear protection test data included in this Blog, is from Engineering performance testing of many different motor oils, which shows how they compare relative to each other. The focus is on the motor oils themselves. Therefore, the resulting comparison data applies to ANY engine that uses the oils included here, no matter if the engine is used for racing, daily driving, grocery getting, watercraft, or any other activity

*****

I have no agenda here. I do not sell anything. I do not charge for viewing the Engineering Test Data found here in my Blog. I do not charge people for the oil tests I perform for them. I do not make even one penny off my Blog. I do not answer to a Board of Directors. I do not answer to Investors/Shareholders. I do not work for any Oil Company. I do not work for any aftermarket Additive Company. I do not accept sponsors. I do not accept Advertising (any Ads you come across on this Blog have nothing to do with me. They are put there by the Blog Service Provider, and I have no control over them). This allows me to be 100% UNBIASED and INDEPENDENT with no outside influence.

I operate this Blog in my spare time when I get the chance. I simply share my Engineering Test Data as a courtesy to other Gear Heads. I do not express an “opinion” about motor oil like most everyone else on the Internet does. I do not express a “theory” about motor oil like most everyone else on the Internet does. I merely post the FACTS that the Science of Physics and Chemistry proves to me. And my test data EXACTLY MATCHES real world experience. A number of examples are provided below in this Blog.

It does not matter to me how many minds I change. I do not have to convince anyone of anything. People are free to embrace my Engineering Test Data and make use of it for their own benefit, or they can ignore it and continue to only guess how motor oils truly perform. But, countless intelligent people all over the world have no trouble understanding the value of my breakthrough Test Data, that simply cannot be found anywhere else. So, I invite you to read through my entire Blog and decide for yourself, what you think of the Engineering Test Data included here.

*****

Before we get into motor oil tech, let’s briefly touch on a little background info. That way people will better understand who I am and where I’m coming from. Here are my credentials:

Mechanical Engineer

Holder of THREE U.S. Patents, for breakthrough designs of Mechanical devices for Military and Commercial Aircraft

Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)

Lifelong Gear Head, Mechanic, Hotrodder, Drag Racer, and Engine Builder

I’m a working Professional Degreed Mechanical Engineer, and Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. A Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical components under load. But, as you will see below, the following write-up is not intended to be a chapter out of an Engineering textbook. And the intended audience is not other Engineers. There are no formulas, equations, charts or graphs. The intended audience includes Mechanics, Automotive Enthusiasts, Gear Heads, Hotrodders, Racers and Engine builders. So, it is written in normal everyday spoken language, rather than overly technical jargon. That way, it will be the easiest to follow and understand by the widest possible audience. And some key points will be “intentionally” reiterated from time to time as the information presented here progresses, to emphasize those points.

.

********************
.
** This Blog now has over 995,000 total “views” worldwide!! APPROACHING THE ONE MILLION VIEWS MILESTONE, clearly shows how popular this “TEXT ONLY” Blog has become all over the world. Intelligent people everywhere, understand the value of, and make good use of the FACTS about motor oil, that can only be found here. The test data here exactly matches real world experience, and a number of back-up examples are provided in the body of this Blog. The Engineering test data provided here, is generated by the Science of Physics and Chemistry that are involved in my testing. There is no opinion, no theory, no speculation, and no emotion involved in my Blog. Science is what provides the FACTS here, even if critics out there don’t like it. Science is the REAL DEAL, and it doesn’t care if people like it or not.

Those critics have tried to discredit my Engineering test data, but they have failed miserably, as you can see from the continual amazing growth and success of this Blog. They think they know more than what Science proves to us. Who do you think will win an argument against Science? Those critics are ignorant of the FACTS, and instead they make emotional outbursts, relying on false beliefs and opinion, to try and redirect people’s understanding about motor oil. But, all their failed efforts show just how wrong they are, and intelligent people simply ignore them. It is the critics’ loss, because they continue to believe and follow bad information, while the rest of us make use of, and benefit from, the FACTS. So, I have a question for those critics, “What have they ever written about motor oil that has been READ NEARLY ONE MILLION TIMES?“
.
This Blog’s view count typically increases by around 10,000 views every six weeks or so. And occasionally, its view count on a single day, will surpass 1,000 views. And on March 16, 2023 a MASSIVE ALL-TIME “one day” Blog view record was set with a WHOPPING 1,981 views, that nearly DOUBLED the previous highest number of views on a single day record, that took place on March 29, 2018 when 1,092 views were recorded. That replaced the earlier record from January 18, 2018 when 1,061 views were recorded. And on January 5, 2019, 1,048 views were recorded. Of course simply listing the number of views by itself, is not intended to indicate validation of the test data (validation is shown throughout the Blog). But, indicating the number of views does show that an enormous number of people worldwide recognize the value, understand the importance, and make use of the motor oil test data FACTS included here, that cannot be found anywhere else. And as a result, they are posting and sharing links to this Blog, all over the world.
.

.
!! THE INFO ON THIS BLOG WAS LAST UPDATED ON March 17, 2023 !!
.
• The following was added to the body of this Blog:
On March 16, 2023 a MASSIVE ALL-TIME “one day” Blog view record was set with a WHOPPING 1,981 views, that nearly DOUBLED the previous highest number of views on a single day record, that took place on March 29, 2018 when 1,092 views were recorded.

• The Blog view count above, was updated. This Blog now has over 995,000 total “views” worldwide!! APPROACHING THE ONE MILLION VIEWS MILESTONE, clearly shows how popular this “TEXT ONLY” Blog has become all over the world. Intelligent people everywhere, understand the value of, and make good use of the FACTS about motor oil, that can only be found here.

.

.

*******************
.
NOTE: All oils used in the testing here, were purchased in the U.S.A., unless otherwise specified.
.
********************

.
HOW TO SEARCH ON THIS BLOG:
Press the F3 key, or press “ctrl F“. Type in what you are looking for, in the FIND window at the top, and it will show the number of matches found, at the top. It will highlight those matches in yellow, and will take you right to the first match.
.
*********************

.
A COMMENT ABOUT THE “Q & A” SECTION ABOVE:

In this Blog’s Q & A Section, people can contact me directly with their questions, and I will answer them as soon as I can. I have received and answered hundreds of questions.

I can see a view count of how many people read this Q & A section each day, which is often around one hundred people (however, the daily view count of the main body of this Blog itself, is many times higher than that). However, none of the daily view counts on this Blog, are visible to the general public.

And be aware that this Blog automatically blocks and deletes all nasty messages that contain certain key words. So, I cannot see what has been said in any nasty message. I can only see “how many” nasty messages were blocked and deleted.

So, if people want to contact me in the Q & A Section, they have to send normal decent questions or messages so that I can see them.
.
********************

.
QUICK REFERENCE INFO

Summary of engine types and basic motor oil recommendation:

– Plain bearing engines use high pressure oiling systems. These engines when well designed, do NOT require thick oil as long as they make sufficient HOT oil pressure with thinner oils. This recommendation is generally intended for Shop-Built or Home-Built Hot Rod and Racing engines, where the builders INCORRECTLY believe that they need to use thick motor oils. But, the fact is, those engines are MUCH better served with thinner motor oil. And it may require a high volume oil pump to achieve the proper balance between bearing clearances and HOT oil pressure. Thinner oil and a high volume oil pump is FAR SUPERIOR to thick oil and a standard volume oil pump. Modern factory engines already are designed for thinner oils, so those owners don’t need to do anything different from the viscosity those engines already call for.

– Ball bearing engines use low pressure oiling systems. And should use the viscosity recommended by the manufacturer. Thin oils may drop the already low oil pressure to an unacceptably low level.

– Water cooled engines are capable of controlling their oil temperatures under normal operating conditions, which can allow using thinner oils, if following the recommendations just above.

– Air cooled engines cannot control their oil temperature reliably, and should use an oil with a HOT viscosity rating of 50 or 60.

– All gasoline engines can use superior automotive gasoline engine oils, as long as an acceptable viscosity is used. And in the case of wet clutch motorcycles, as long as their clutches are in good condition.

– Diesel engines should use Diesel oil of the viscosity recommended by the manufacturer.
.
.

*************************
.
.
HERE IS AN EXCELLENT ENDORSEMENT FROM ONE OF MY BLOG READERS

From February 8th, 2023

I would like to thank you for this excellent Blog that you run, and for the professional, unbiased, fact-based work that you do. I – and so many others – consider you to be the world-authority on automotive lubrication testing.

Take care, 540 Rat.

Kind Regards,

P.B.

South Africa
.
.

*************************
.
.
HERE IS AN EXCELLENT BLOG VALIDATION TESTIMONIAL FROM ONE OF MY BLOG READERS

From Blog reader M.P. on December 5th, 2022:

540 Rat-

Many thanks for the fact-based work and testing you’re doing.

I’ve road raced a vintage 4 cylinder car for 10+ years, rebuilding the motor every 2 years or so.

With the latest motor, we utilized your test results and ran the motor from new with 5w30 Quaker State Full Synthetic, API SP that you highly recommend. Inspection after a recent teardown revealed cam lobes, followers and cylinder liners in FANTASTIC condition. Visibly and measurably less wear that we’ve experienced in the past with high viscosity “race oils”.

Thanks again- you are a unique human being and a blessing to those in the motorsports community willing to learn.

M. P.
.
==============
.

Hi M.

You are welcome. Thank you very much for the kind words. It’s nice to hear appreciation like that.

And thanks for the terrific feedback on your experience. It’s great to read that you have had amazing success just like many, many of my other Blog readers have had, from making use of my Engineering Test Data.

The source of the incredible results you and my other readers have benefitted from, can ONLY be found here in my Blog. All that “Real World” experience EXACTLY MATCHES what my Test Data has “Always Predicted”. And it specifically backs-up my recent Tech Article #75 on the CURE for flat tappet cam lobe failures.

That’s why I do all this. Because the Automotive World needs someplace to go that actually provides Engineering FACTS.

Take care,

540 RAT
.
.
***********************
.
.

HERE IS ANOTHER EXCELLENT BLOG VALIDATION TESTIMONIAL FROM ONE OF MY BLOG READERS

From Blog reader J.M. on October 6th, 2022:

Hi Rat,

I also want to chime in on only using QS Full Synthetic 5w/30 in my engines.

I rebuilt my son a 360 4 barrel for his 1970 Dodge Dart Swinger last year. He is 21 and this engine gets severe pounding on the street as I have the videos to prove it (LOL) Hydraulic Lunati Voodoo cam in that one.

None of this 20 minute religious experience of breaking it in for 20 minutes while sipping coffee. I never understood that. I have built many Mopar 318’s, 340’s, 360’s, 413’s, and 440’s over the years. Rebuild them then hit the strip or the street right away and drive them! I only started taking cams out 7-8 years ago then researched and found you.

Since then, only QS or Amsoil went in my motors until QS 5w/30 became the top dog. Now only that oil in my current rides: 1971 Cuda 440, 2004 Lexus ES 330, 1987 Dodge W150 4×4 with rebuilt 440 and flat tappet hydraulic cam, and a 1999 K2500 Suburban with the 454 and no overdrive anymore with 410 gears.

The K2500 has been across the country to the West coast 3x since overdrive went out and runs 3000 rpm at 68mph so I must have the best oil.

I drag race my 1971 Cuda at BIR raceway in Minnesota. 600 HP and QS 5w/30 FS is all it gets. It has a solid roller in that one but I am attesting the the fact you can run stock rebuild engine clearances and run 5w/30 without any issues.

The 5w/30 is a great performer in my sons 360 Dodge and my 87 440 Dodge truck. My sons Dodge and my truck also only use standard volume oil pumps.

I tell everyone on Mopar forums and at BIR to check you out and go by your rankings.

You cannot believe the kickback when you say “I only use QS Full Synthetic 5w/30” You would think a death penalty or charges of treason would follow.

My 21 year old son gets same ridicule. I tell him to tell his buddies this is not the 1970’s anymore with that oil technology. For some reason QS carries a bad rap and not sure why. I began using it once in awhile in the 80’s as a youth and never any issues.

Keep up the good work! I am fighting the good oil fight on your behalf as well.

You can tell a fool because you can give him sound proof and all he does is argue with you. The wise and prudent will listen and evaluate what is told them and check it out for themselves. I really think people fall for the fancy bottles and wording and turn oil into a God.

Thanks again Rat for your hard work!

J.M.
.
.
===============
.
.
Hi J.

It’s good to hear from you. Thanks for the terrific feedback on 5W30 Quaker State Full Synthetic (QSFS), API SP. I’m glad to see that you are having great success with that oil, like I am, and like many of my other readers are. Your experience is yet ANOTHER example that 100% VALIDATES my Engineering Test Data.

You must still be seeing good “HOT” oil pressure numbers with 5W30 while using standard volume oil pumps.

But, that is not always the case, which is why I recommend using high volume oil pumps, to be sure.

You described very well how absolute FOOLS act when they have no understanding of motor oil at all. They are trying to argue with something you have proven in the real world. Only a totally insane idiot would argue against what has just been proven.

There are really no words to properly explain how seemingly normal human beings could be that mentally unsound.

I can tell you that Multi-Billion dollar Corporations use test results to make Multi-Million dollar decisions. Yet, these morons want to argue to your face about your results. Unbelievable…

But, I have endured that same BS myself, countless times.

You were 100% correct when you said this is not the 70’s oil technology anymore.

Today’s 21st Century motor oil technology is light years ahead of old time motor oils.

Thanks for fighting the good fight on my behalf. And thanks for telling people on that Forum and at the track to check out my Blog, and to use my Ranking List.

By the way, just a heads up regarding solid roller cam and “bushing” type solid roller lifter setups. Those lifter rollers will eventually fail after enough usage due to metal fatigue, unless you you replace them preemptively before that happens.

So, if you see pitting and flaking on a roller’s OD, that is failure due to never-ending pounding/shock loading. It is metal surface fatigue failure called “spalling”. And just so you know, that has NOTHING to do with the oil being used.

For “needle” type solid roller lifters, the needles will usually suffer fatigue failure before the roller does.

Thanks for getting in touch,

540 RAT
.
.

**************************
.
.
HERE IS STILL ANOTHER EXCELLENT BLOG VALIDATION TESTIMONIAL FROM ONE OF MY BLOG READERS

From Blog reader P.M. on October 3rd, 2022:

I thought I would update the break in on my Summit flat tappet cam.

We used 5W30 Quaker State Full Synthetic, API SP, which is the highest rated oil on 540 Rat’s blog. We used no additional additives.

The engine was built ten years ago, and the SUM-CT108 solid flat tappet cam and matching lifter kit was purchased from Summit Racing at that time, to go with the engine. The cam was installed with the assembly lube that came with it. Daddy had Shaeffer’s break-in oil in it, and so we drained it out and put the 5W30 Quaker State Full Synthetic in.

The engine has been on an engine stand in the shop for the last ten years waiting to be used. So it was a fresh build, built ten years ago that had only been fired two weeks ago.

In short, it worked perfectly. We didn’t let the engine idle but we didn’t go through the traditional break-in procedure either. We cranked the engine up, set the timing, and drove it a few minutes three or four times to make sure we had established a good contact pattern on the lobes and lifters.

We set the lash at .014″ to begin with and checked it after break-in, and it’s still .014″. Plus there are no metal flakes or grit or shiny stuff in the engine or the oil. It’s the cleanest the oil has ever been on a flat tappet cam break-in that I have done. It’s so clean that I’m going to continue to run it for a while longer. The oil still looks brand new.

If you want your flat tappet cam to live, listen to 540 Rat. And no he didn’t pay me to say all this, LOL.

I tell all my friends about your blog anytime the conversation is about oil and filters, lifters, connecting rods, rod bolts, etc. etc. I’m simply amazed by your Blog.

Again, thanks for saving me tons of money and time with all your FREE information here on your Blog and Q&A Section!

.
.
==============
.
.
Hi again P,

That’s great feedback, thank you so much for sharing your experience. I appreciate getting your feedback, and I appreciate you letting people know about the success you had following my recommendation to use the new low zinc 5W30 Quaker State Full Synthetic, API SP, in a flat tappet engine.

That will leave people on Automotive Forums and on that Oil Guy Forum, at a loss for words. Because they are always adamant that flat tappet engines MUST ONLY use High Zinc “Break-In Oil”, and regular High Zinc oil after Break-In. Your experience is yet another example that they are COMPLETELY WRONG about needing High Zinc oil in flat tappet engines.

And your experience following my recommendations, ONCE AGAIN 100% VALIDATES my Engineering Test Data. And PROVES that the Engineering FACTS I share here in my Blog, always work.

You are now among many of my Blog readers with flat tappet engines who have had great success following my advice on what oil to use, and to NOT follow the insane Break-In procedures those Automotive Forums and that Oil Guy Forum always insist you need to follow.

Just so you know, and for the benefit of everyone reading this, it was NOT necessary to prevent your engine from “idling”. It would have been perfectly fine to let it “idle”.

The whole idea of needing to prevent a flat tappet engine from idling much, especially during initial fire-up, because of lack of oil being splashed on the cam and lifters, is COMPLETELY FALSE. That is just ANOTHER thing that brainless Forum people get completely WRONG.

They are SO incompetent, that they have NO IDEA what they are talking about. The FACT is, flat tappet cam and lifters are FLOODED with pressurized oil from the lifter to lifter bore clearance, even at idle.

If you have a V-8 engine block with large enough openings in the lifter valley to see the cam lobes and lifters, with the intake manifold off, you can prime the engine with oil using a drill, and see this cam and lifter oil flooding for yourself. And that flood of oil will be the largest if you are running a high volume oil pump and 5W30 oil like everyone should be.

Like I always say, it is in everyone’s best interest to STOP going to those WORTHLESS Forums, because they spew nothing but WRONG information.

When people want the TRUTH and the FACTS, all they have to do is come right here to my Blog.

Thanks again,

540 RAT
.
.
==============
.
.

HERE IS A BLOG VALIDATION TESTIMONIAL FROM ONE OF MY BLOG READERS

April 20, 2021

I’ve been checking this Blog every 2 or 3 weeks for the past 2 years, looking forward to whatever updates you’ve recently posted. I wanted to post my own testimonial in regards to your oil-related data.

I was a long time Amsoil 5W30 customer, but switched to Quaker State when it started rising in your list of highest PSI values. I recently had a Blackstone Lab used oil analysis done on the Quaker State oil I’ve been using in a 176,000 mile Lincoln MKz and a 135,000 mile Toyota 4Runner.

Blackstone didn’t find ANY trace metals in either of the tests. I give you and this blog 100% of the credit for these awesome results. I honestly think an engine running on Quaker State would literally run forever with only accessory/pump replacements.

Thank you so much for taking the time to research and publish this incredibly valuable information.

R. F.
.
===============
.
Hi there,

Your Lab Test results EXACTLY MATCH what was predicted by my Engineering Torture Test on 5W30 Quaker State Full Synthetic, API SP, which set a NEW ALL-TIME RECORD for motor oil performance of the over 250 motor oils I have tested so far.

This is FURTHER PROOF that Gear Heads can ONLY FIND THE TRUTH about motor oil right here in my Blog. So, Gear Heads everywhere should ignore all those Internet Automotive, Motor Oil, Motorcycle, Tractor and Boat Forums, because they only throw out WRONG, WORTHLESS information about motor oil.

Take care,

540 RAT

.
.
********************
.

ONE OF THE BEST BLOG VALIDATION TESTIMONIALS YET FROM ONE OF MY BLOG READERS

February 5, 2021

Hello Mr. Rat.

I’d like to thank you for this blog, I wish I’d read it sooner! I’m not a professional builder, but I’ve done a dozen or so rebuilds over the years. Never had any kind of problems, failures or breakage, so when this happened I was stunned.

My current build is a Pontiac 455, It ate the first cam during the break in and did a lot of damage in the process. From my first rebuild in 1982 to this point, I had never seen this happen or known anyone it’s happened to. I had followed all the recommendations that I got from manufacturers, speed shops/builders and Summits tech dept, but still ended up starting over. Since I knew everything was done right, I blamed the cam and switched brands.

Followed all the recommendations again, the second cam lost a lobe on the break in. At least this time it was caught before any other damage was caused.

Then, I ran across you blog and everything started to make sense. I switched to the QS 5w30 that was on your list, still had lighter springs on it for the break in. Just did the initial start up on cam number 3. I ran it around 20 minutes, then pulled the intake to check for damage before I put the new springs on it. NO DAMAGE. Again! Thank you, I wish I’d read this sooner!

I have at least 2 more builds to do when this one is done and would just like to confirm a couple of things with you.

1. The lighter valve springs are not necessary for break in? The cam lift will be around .500″ or less.

2. The oil additives that the camshaft manufacturers suggest, should not be used?

3. Does it matter, camshaft assembly lube/grease or STP oil treatment?

4. Lastly, have you seen/tested NMF Ionic Friction Reducer? I’ve been seeing ads/videos and was wondering your thoughts on it.

Again, I can’t thank you enough for all the information.

H. A.
.
.
=================
.
.
Hi H. A,

Welcome to my Blog. I’m glad to see that you appreciate the information you found here.

And I’m happy to see that you finally had success by following my advice, while ignoring everyone else’s bad advice that had caused you to suffer multiple engine failures.

It’s just mind blowing how sources such as parts manufacturers, speed shops, engine builders, Summit’s Tech Department, and every Automotive Forum out there, continue to spew nothing but bad information, that is so wrong that it destroys engines. It’s hard to fathom how so many unqualified people who like to consider themselves experts, never get a clue how off-track they really are when they continue to have never-ending engine failures. They always want to blame everything “BUT” their extremely poor motor oil choices.

My Blog and its FACTUAL information that have proven over and over again to save engines, is no secret to gear heads on the Internet. In fact, I used to be a member of a few of the main American Automotive Forums out there.

I shared my Engineering Test Data information there, just like I do here on my Blog. But, they completely ignored my information, and pounded me for daring to post it. Because it was totally different than the Myths they had always been brainwashed to believe in. Some of the worst of which, are their incorrect beliefs that they need high zinc motor oil, that they need so-called break-in oil, and/or that they need break-in additives, and that they need to perform some ridiculous 20 minute, complicated break-in procedure, all of which are not only totally FALSE, but they typically CAUSE the engine failures you have been experiencing.

But, rather than accept the fact that their engine failures were actually caused BECAUSE of the unsupported Myths they have always followed, they just keep on doing things wrong. That is the definition of being seriously stupid. And to think that there are thousands of people like that, is frightening.

These unqualified people repeat bad information a million times, and they are brain dead enough to blindly accept all that, with absolutely nothing to back it up. All they have to go on, is opinion, theory, speculation, hearsay, guessing, and emotion. But, that is certainly NOT how the Engineering world works. The Engineering world works from factual proven test data.

So, it is just UNBELIEVABLE that for extremely important matters like this, these people willingly and eagerly embrace all that completely wrong info with no proof at all, just because many other people believe it. It is a clear case follow the leader, or some might say mob mentality.

Yet, when I provide actual hard Engineering Test Data, proving my information, they have no problem ignoring it and criticizing it, even though they are not qualified to even comment. What kind of insane world do they live in? So, it’s hard to feel sorry for them and all their engine failures, when it’s their own fault. They are their own worst enemy.

But, the worst thing of it all, is that countless innocent guys like you are victimized by their utter incompetence. It has been proven over and over again, that the worst possible thing innocent gear heads can do, is to listen to all those people who have no idea what they are talking about, when it comes to motor oil.

Because of all their insanity, I started my Blog so that gear heads like you would have somewhere to go for the FACTS about motor oil. I back-up everything I post in my Blog with hard Engineering Test Data. Clearly no one else backs-up what they say about motor oil, with Facts like I do.

I’m glad you found your way here. But, it is a shame that you didn’t find me sooner. Because I could have saved you a lot of time, money, and agony.

Now to your questions:

1. Light weight valve springs are NOT needed for break-in.

2. NEVER EVER use aftermarket motor oil additives.

3. STP Oil Treatment is excellent as a cam and lifter assembly lube. But, do NOT pour the bottle of STP into the engine as part of the motor oil being used. It is for assembly lube ONLY.

4. Same as #2 above, NEVER EVER use aftermarket motor oil additives.

So, here is what you should follow for a successful engine build:

– Build your engine as you normally would, with it ready to drive down the road right after it is fired up, and everything checks out good, such as no leaks, etc.

– Do NOT use so-called Break-In oil which is THE WORST motor oil on the market.

– Do NOT use any aftermarket motor oil additives.

– Do NOT use a crazy thick motor oil. Use a thinner oil, ideally 5W30, as long as your engine is capable of making acceptable “HOT” oil pressure with that oil. Depending the oiling system capability, and the bearing clearances, some traditional American V-8 engines will require a high volume oil pump to do that, which is preferred anyway.

– Do NOT follow any ridiculous complicated 20 minute break-in procedure. As soon as the engine is running and all is good, back the vehicle out of the garage, and go drive it the way you normally plan to use it. That’s it, very simple. Break-in is largely an overblown Myth, because engines will break-in almost immediately. That is because the engine components are automatically forced seat in very, very quickly to carry the load being applied to them.

– I’ve built many, many engines over the years. So, I’ve tested many different ways of breaking them in, to find out if there is a certain way that might better than the others. I’ve broken them in slow and easy, hard and fast, and everything in between. What I’ve found is that it makes absolutely NO difference at all how they are broken-in.

– That is real world experience which proves and backs-up what I said above, about engines breaking-in almost immediately all by themselves. Therefore, whatever you do shortly after that, makes no difference at all.

– Bottom Line: If an engine is built properly, with quality parts, and the proper motor oil is used that is capable of supporting that particular engine’s needs, then you don’t need to be concerned about how it’s “broken-in”, because it just DOESN’T matter.

– Use only a highly ranked motor oil from my wear protection ranking list, from first fire, on. You do NOT need to use different oils at different times. Case in point: Even automotive factories do NOT use break-in oils. Not even in their Highest Performance vehicles. They just use the normal oil that is called for in a given vehicle. My recommendation is 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability oil, or 5W30 Amsoil Signature Series oil. Then change it at reasonable intervals.

– The methodology I use and highly recommend, works extremely well, not because it’s magic, but because it follows the Engineering FACTS. When we make use of the Facts, we don’t have any problems, just like you found out once you followed my recommendations.

– The number one thing that matters when it comes to motor oil wear protection capability, is the psi value that an oil can produce in my Engineering Torture Test. Beyond that, it is also important to use the correct motor oil viscosity.

By the way, if you are interested in preventing others like yourself, from having the same trouble you experienced, feel free to spread the word as far and wide as you see fit, about the success you finally had after finding, and making use of the Facts from my Blog.

It would be a good thing to get the word out there more and more, to make people aware of all the bad information out there that is the root cause of so many engine failures. And to let them know that they can go to my Blog for the Facts that simply cannot be found anywhere else.

Take care,

540 RAT
.
****************
.

This is “Yet Another Example” of my Engineering Test Data in this Blog, EXACTLY MATCHING real world experience

One of my Blog readers contacted me about a differential wear problem he and some of his buddies were having with their cars, when they were using Amsoil 75W90 Severe Gear Synthetic Gear Lube. He said they were finding large amounts of steel powder build-up on their differential’s magnetic drain plugs. But, when they stopped using that Amsoil 75W90, and then switched to Motul 75W90 Gear 300 Synthetic Ester Transmission and Differential Fluid, there was almost no steel powder on their magnetic drain plugs. That real world experience, of course indicated that the Motul 75W90 was providing significantly BETTER wear protection than the Amsoil 75W90.

So, he contacted me and was wondering if my Engineering Torture Test on lubricating oils could have predicted that gear oil performance difference in advance. I told him that I had never tested those particular gear oils, but I would test them in the near future to see how they performed in my Engineering Test. The results of my testing on those two gear oils can be seen in Tech Article # 55.

And as expected, since my Engineering Torture Test on lubricating oils always matches real world experience, I found that Amsoil 75W90 Severe Gear Synthetic Gear Lube was indeed a very poor performer compared to the much better performing Motul 75W90 Gear 300 Synthetic Ester Transmission and Differential Fluid.

Specifically, the Motul 75W90 provided a HUGE 32% or about 1/3 BETTER wear protection, which accounts for the difference in wear that my Blog reader and his buddies experienced. And that of course PROVED ONCE AGAIN, that my Engineering Test Data, EXACTLY MATCHES REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE by showing the precise difference in the Wear Protection Capability of those two gear oils. This Blog is the ONLY place you can find accurate and reliable Test Data like that.

.

**********
.

SOCIAL MEDIA AND BOUNDARY LUBRICATION:

.
I should probably take a moment here to address an issue that some of you may have come across, and wondered about. A Social Media critic of this Blog, like all critics of this Blog that I’m aware of, is totally unqualified to be commenting about my Blog’s factual Engineering test data, which is determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved in the testing. However, this critic claims that “boundary lubrication” is all that matters, rather than my test data. For those not familiar with that, here is a definition:

.
“The regime known as “boundary lubrication” occurs when conventional hydrodynamic fluid film formulation due to fluid entrainment is insufficient to fully separate lubricated, rubbing surfaces. In such circumstances it is found that the surfaces often continue to be separated by a very thin protective film produced by adsorption or reaction of components of the lubricant on the solid surfaces. The precise nature and properties of boundary lubricating films have long been a subject of debate and research.”

.

This is the condition that is in effect just before the parts would seize, if that was not maintained. And this is where zinc or other extreme pressure anti-wear motor oil components would be in play. But, this critic is so laughably unaware, that he doesn’t even understand that my Engineering tests have absolutely, and automatically, always involved every oil’s boundary lubrication capability. Because boundary lubrication “IS” part of the motor oil testing I perform.
.
My testing determines each oil’s ultimate failure point, also called its maximum “film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance value”, which takes place at the same time as the boundary lubrication reaches its limit. So, to put all this in simple terms, if you refer to my test results of each oil’s ultimate failure point, as the film strength limit, the load carrying capability limit, the shear resistance limit, or the boundary lubrication limit, they all effectively mean the same thing and represent the same psi value that I post in my Wear Protection Ranking List. And a debate about any practical difference between them, is just unnecessary silly semantics. But, this critic is so clueless, that he completely misses the point, that he is arguing “FOR” what my testing has been doing all along. He completely endorses my testing, while thinking he is arguing against it.
.
For the reasons just mentioned, I don’t bother talking about boundary lubrication itself, in this Blog. As I said above, this Blog is not intended to be a chapter out of an Engineering textbook. It is meant to provide useful information to the reader. So, what is truly important to us, is finding each oil’s actual ultimate failure point/maximum wear protection capability limit, which is precisely the information that my Engineering test data provides. That way, we know just how capable each oil is, which is what we compare. With that information, my Blog readers can make an informed buying decision, the next time they buy motor oil for their engine. Ask that critic what specific data he thinks he can provide, for you to take to the Auto Parts Store, and he won’t have an answer for you.

.

Another example of that critic having no idea what he is talking about, is his bogus claim that my test data could only apply to old school engines, such as traditional flat tappet engines, but not to new modern engines. He does not know that there are brand new, major brand name, modern state of the art engines, coming off the assembly line with dual overhead camshafts (DOHC), with lobes that push directly down on buckets which compress the valve springs. Not all brand new modern engines are fully roller type engines. So, those brand new engines, and old-school flat tappet engines, have the same exact type of cam lobe friction interface.

.

On top of that, he has no grasp of the statement, “Most engine wear takes place during cold start-up before oil flow reaches all the critical internal components”. This is an absolutely FACTUAL statement that I make from time to time. It definitely pertains to most all Hotrods and Race cars, that can often sit for weeks at a time, or even longer, no matter if the engine is OLD-SCHOOL or MODERN. Under that condition, most of the oil has drained off of critical internal engine components, and seeped out of oil passages.

That leaves those parts with only a questionable amount of an oil film remaining, to prevent wear during cold startup, while waiting for oil to start flowing again. And of course having an oil film from a highly ranked, excellent performing, low cold viscosity rated motor oil such as 0WXX or 5WXX, from my Wear Protection Ranking List, greatly helps to reduce wear during critical cold start-up conditions. And priming the engine with oil before firing it up, provides even better insurance against wear. Hotrodders and Racers are who this Blog was originally started for, and they still make up a huge portion of this Blogs readers. So, this is certainly worth repeating from time to time.

But, for daily drivers, there is little concern about cold start-up wear, because there is sufficient residual oil on critical components and in oil passages, from running the engine every day. And in addition to that, this critic doesn’t even know that once any engine is fired up and running with full oil flow, no matter if it is OLD-SCHOOL or MODERN, as long as it is run easy while being allowed to fully warm-up, which allows sufficient lubrication even with the reduced oil flow rate from the oil being cold and thick, there will be little to no wear taking place during that time. See my Tech Article, “23. Multi-viscosity motor oils are not exactly what some people think”, and “31. The Truth about Motor Oil Temperature and Wear Protection Capability”, for more details.

.
These are just a couple of examples showing that my test data does “in fact”, apply to both old-school and modern engines, no matter what that critic says. I invite you to compare my complete Blog to any nonsense he has spewed on Social Media. And then decide for yourself who is providing FACTUAL information, that you can actually make use of yourself, in any engine from mild to wild.
.
BOTTOM LINE:

My advice is, ignore any critics of my Blog, because they have always been wrong, and cannot be trusted. They are not Engineers, they don’t have Credentials, they don’t have in-depth real world experience with engines, and they have never done any testing themselves. So, they draw all kinds of incorrect conclusions and assumptions about motor oil, since they have no idea what they are doing. They read a few lame Internet articles, and they think they are experts. But, they are completely clueless that some technical information they read about motor oil, is so highly theoretical, that it isn’t even a factor in the real world. So, they don’t even know, what they don’t know.

If normal decent Blog readers have a legitimate question, they can ask me in the Q&A Section at the top of this Blog. And I’ll answer their question as soon as possible.

But, it is not my job to train critics how to be an arm-chair Engineer in a couple of paragraphs, when all they really want to do, is argue about everything. I don’t have time for that kind of nonsense. If critics cannot accept the information I share here, they are free to go back to just “guessing” how motor oils perform, and to drawing “incorrect” conclusions and assumptions about other technical aspects of motor oil. That will be their loss, not mine.

.
This Blog will provide you with the best, most complete, FACTUAL motor oil test data you will ever find anywhere. I challenge anyone, anywhere, to PROVE that my Engineering test data is wrong. Enough said. Now on with the Tech FACTS you came here for.

.
***************************
.
Here is a Testimonial that was sent to me in February 2019, from one of my Blog readers:

540 RAT,

About 14 months ago I picked your brain on some oil recommendations regarding a new hydraulic flat tappet cam for my small block Chevy. I promised I’d update you on my results. I used the 0W40 Mobil 1 European blend in my engine as recommended. I did the prelube of the engine etc as well as lubricated the new camshaft (Howard’s). I fired it up and never did the nonsensical 30 minutes of 2500 rpm to break the cam in, per your recommendation. I have 5000 miles on the motor and just tore it down to inspect it (I built a 383 to replace my small 327) and mic’d my cam lobes. Son of a b you were right! I was so nervous but never had a problem with the cam.

To be clear I had installed several cams in the past and was ignorant to the whole cam break in process. I grew up in a race shop and the engine builders there would put one together and throw it in a car and would go 200 laps at WOT. I never had a cam wiped and never was remotely concerned until seeing it online. Anyone reading this should consider using a high psi oil that 540 RAT tests and relax. To be fair, Howard’s parkerizes all cams and that’s supposed to help wear, but all cams prior to this cam were from Comp and Lunati and they were NOT parkerized.

Thanks for talking me off the ledge in 2017 lol. I needed some reassurance and you provided it. LISTEN TO THIS MAN!

Thanks again, M. P.

.

*******************
.
BRIEF TECH INTRO:
.

The absolute MOST important capability of any motor oil, is to PREVENT WEAR!!! And that capability is determined by its proprietary additive package formulation which includes the extreme pressure anti-wear components. Everything else a motor oil does, comes AFTER that. And everything else a motor oil does, is in “back-up support” of preventing wear. For example, preventing acid formation, ultimately prevents wear. Preventing deposit build-up, maintains oil flow and lubrication, preventing wear. Preventing sludge build-up, maintains oil flow and lubrication, preventing wear. Minimizing air bubbles/foam, keeps the oil mostly liquid oil which is required for proper lubrication, preventing wear, etc, etc. You get the idea.

Here are the two primary decisions you need to make regarding the motor oil you use in your engine, in their order of importance:

1. The NUMBER ONE most important decision is to select an oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List found below in the Blog, that provides the level of wear protection that you feel comfortable with for your particular engine. The higher the psi value, the better the wear protection. Racing engines and High Performance street engines that load their oil near its limit, especially traditional American flat tappet pushrod V-8 engines, are best protected with highly ranked oils. Ordinary low performance daily drivers that only lightly load their oil, can get by well enough with low ranked oils, if absolute maximum life out of the engine is not critical.

Regarding traditional American flat tappet pushrod V-8 engines specifically:

Stock or lightly modified versions of those engines are best protected by oils  that provide at least 100,000 psi or higher film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance.

Racing and High Performance street versions of those engines are best protected by oils  that provide at least 120,000 psi or higher film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance.

NOTE: There are synthetic oils on the market that perform very well, while other synthetics do not. There are conventional oils on the market that perform very well, while other conventional oils do not. My Wear Protection Ranking List shows you which oil is which.

2. The NUMBER TWO most important decision is to decide when to change the oil you are using, no matter what that oil may be. See Tech Article “25. Recommended Oil Change Interval – For Automobiles “AND” Motorcycles”, below in this Blog for all the details on that.

**********

Motor oil exists in “TWO” forms inside an engine, under which it needs to protect against wear. They are as follows:

1. “Liquid oil” which can be defined as oil thick enough to drip, run, pour or flow.

2. An “oil film” can be defined as a coating of oil too thin to drip, run, pour or flow.

An example of oil in “liquid” form, is in the rod and main bearing clearance, where the incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge is formed between the crankshaft journals and its bearing shells, as the oil is pulled in by the rotating crankshaft. Oil pressure does not keep the parts separated. Oil pressure serves only to supply oil to be pulled in between the parts.

The fact is, liquids cannot be compressed to allow metal to metal contact, so parts are kept separated and no wear or damage can take place. In liquid form, it does not matter what the oil’s viscosity is, what brand it is, how hot it is, nor how much it costs. Because in the incompressible liquid form, all motor oils provide the same unsurpassed wear protection.

A mere “film of oil”, is the last line of defense against metal to metal contact, and the subsequent wear and/or damage that can follow. An example of an oil film is between non-roller flat tappet lifters and cam lobes of traditional pushrod American V-8 engines, or in DOHC engines between the cam lobes and non-roller type followers they may use. But, it is most critical in pushrod engines which typically use large single intake and single exhaust valves with stiff valve springs, compared to DOHC engines which often use two smaller intake and two smaller exhaust valves with lighter and smaller valve springs. In these locations, no incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge can be formed because of the wide open parts configuration. And the oil present is simply pushed aside, leaving only a film of oil between the parts with a very thin, highly loaded “line contact” between the parts.

Since “all liquid oils” are incompressible and thus provide unsurpassed wear protection, there is nothing to test for comparisons between different oils in liquid form. My Engineering Tests evaluate the much more critical oil film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance, which as mentioned above, is the last line of defense before metal to metal contact takes place.

No reliable comprehensive information had been available for this capability comparison, until I began my dynamic motor oil testing, under load, at a representative operating temperature. I perform those Engineering Wear Protection Tests to find out where the motor oil film strength, load carrying capability, shear resistance “limits” are for each individual motor oil. That’s what we compare. The higher the limit, given in PSI, the better the wear protection.

“Film strength, load carrying capability, shear resistance” performance is where motor oil wear protection capability VARIES WIDELY depending on a given oil’s proprietary formulation. And it is at the film strength level, where oils can be evaluated and compared, for those different wear protection capabilities. This is where good oils are separated from not so good oils.

Only dynamic wear testing under load, at a normal operating temperature, can reveal how the various motor oils truly compare regarding wear protection. So, that is precisely what I do to discover the facts. And that is why merely looking at an oil’s spec sheet is worthless. A spec sheet cannot show you an oil’s wear protection capability, because Engineering tests and real world experience have proven over and over again, that the zinc level does NOT matter. That is only a MYTH that has been repeated a million times until people just assume is true, which it is not. Only the psi value from my test data will actually show us how motor oils truly perform regarding wear protection.

My test data EXACTLY matches real world severe over-heating experience, real world Track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance Street experience. Test data validation doesn’t get any better than this.

BOTTOM LINE:

THIS BLOG CONTAINS THE MOST COMPLETE, INDEPENDENT, UNBIASED, ACCURATE AND FACTUAL, BREAKTHROUGH MOTOR OIL WEAR PROTECTION CAPABILITY TEST DATA, THAT YOU WILL EVER FIND ANYWHERE. THE INFORMATION HERE IS PROVEN, AND TRUSTED WORLDWIDE. Many people have called it the “be-all, end-all” of motor oil information, which is absolutely true, because it is the real deal.

For all the motor oil comparison data, see my Wear Protection Ranking List below in this Blog.

But, there could be some confusion for people who do not actually read my entire Blog. My test data on wear protection is generally aimed at High Performance and Racing engines that are capable of pushing motor oils near their limits. So, knowing how capable various oils truly are, can be critical. It is of course also for people who simply want to know what oils will provide the best possible wear protection for their engines, even if they don’t technically push their motor oil near its limit.

However, for ordinary daily driver vehicles, the oil used is nowhere near as critical as it is for High Performance and Racing engines. So, a normal daily driver vehicle may operate just fine for the life of the engine on say a low performing 60,000 psi motor oil. But, a High Performance or Racing engine may require a high performing 90,000 psi or higher motor oil, to avoid wear and/or damage. It just depends on how much loading the engine puts on its motor oil.

NOTE: Read my Wear Protection Ranking List carefully regarding an oil you may be considering for your application. Because some Oil Companies make changes to their oil, making them worse than they were previously, apparently to maintain or increase profit margins. So, always look for the most recent test data on oils that have both older and newer data posted. In those cases, I always indicate which oils are older and no longer available. It may be that you can no longer safely use an oil that was just fine for your needs in the past.

And the better performing the oil, the higher the reserve wear protection capability, also called margin of safety, which means capability beyond what is actually required. If you have a problem at some point, say an engine component starts to fail, or the oil level gets low, or there is an overheating condition, or you increase the power level dramatically, etc, etc, then extra reserve wear protection capability could save your engine. So, people have to decide for themselves how much wear protection capability they feel comfortable with for any given engine build. And since you have to buy oil anyway, why not select a better performing motor oil while you are at it?
.
Additional motor oil technical info:
.
Oil is not the same temperature throughout a running engine, the highest oil temps will typically be found in the incompressible “liquid” oil wedge formed as the oil is pulled into the clearance of the rod and main bearings. That is because, the oil at those locations is being heavily loaded on the power stroke, while at the same time, being sheared. Oil at these locations can be 50* to 90* hotter than sump temperatures.
.
During the very brief time interval that oil is flowing through the rod and main bearings, most oils will momentarily reach and exceed their thermal breakdown points. And the cooler the oil starts out, the lower the max temp it reaches there. This is where oils with a higher onset of thermal breakdown point, offer some benefit. Because the less often an oil reaches its breakdown point, and the lower the max temp reached above that point, the longer its capability will remain near new oil level. This means that oils with higher onset of thermal breakdown points, can go longer between oil changes, with regard to thermal deterioration. However, oils with more modest thermal breakdown points can also be used without issue, as long as reasonable oil change intervals are followed, to stay ahead of any significant thermal deterioration.
.
The oil on the cylinder walls is not subjected to the burning combustion temperatures as some might think, because very nearly all oil has been scrapped off the cylinder walls by the oil rings, and is not present during combustion. If any significant amount of oil was still on the cylinder walls during combustion, the exhaust pipes would be blowing blue smoke.
.
When the piston is at TDC, the cylinder walls are coated with oil from all the oil spraying and flying around inside the crankcase. But, as the piston moves downward, the piston skirt scrapes off excess bulk oil, and the lower oil ring of a multi-piece oil ring, scrapes additional oil off the cylinder wall like a squeegee scraping water off a windshield. So, there is a layer of liquid oil between the piston skirt and the cylinder wall (its thickness depends on the piston to cylinder clearance), not just merely an oil film like you would see between a non-roller flat tappet lifter and its cam lobe. And any oil the lower oil ring doesn’t scrape off, the top oil ring of the multi-piece oil ring, will scrape off, directing it through the oil ring expander/spreader and through the oil holes in the piston.

.

Piston ring spring tension against the cylinder walls is NOT what seals the rings against combustion, like most people think. There is no possible way that a mere few pounds of ring spring tension alone, could keep the rings in proper contact with the cylinder walls during the high pressure of combustion. The fact is, rings are kept in contact with the cylinder walls during combustion primarily by the tremendous combustion pressure itself, which is typically well over 1,000 psi, depending on the particular engine. The rings’ spring tension does keep the rings in contact with the cylinder walls enough to direct the high combustion pressure through the ring side clearance above, and then on behind the rings’, to their inside diameter back clearance. And it is this force “behind the rings” that presses the rings out against the cylinder wall with enough force to seal the combustion pressure during the power stroke (some racing pistons have gas ports behind the rings just for this purpose). That is why proper ring side clearance and back clearance are very important, as is free ring movement in the pistons’ ring grooves. To ensure free ring movement and make sure that they don’t get gummed up and stuck in the piston ring groves, it is important to use quality fuel and to change the oil at reasonable intervals.
.
And remember, cylinder walls are in direct contact with the coolant on their outer surface. So, the cylinders are the most directly cooled parts of an engine, meaning the oil side of the cylinder walls are not anywhere near as hot as many people might think.
.

IDEAL OIL TEMPERATURE RANGE

.
An ideal oil sump temperature range is between 215*F and 250*F. If your sump temperature runs hotter than this range, you should add an oil cooler, or upgrade your oil cooler, if you already have one. This range is hot enough to quickly boil off the normal condensation that always forms during cold engine start-up, before that water dilutes the oil. And it is also hot enough to NOT promote the formation of sludge, like colder temperatures below the boiling point of water, can.
.
And that range is cool enough to do three things:
.
1. It is cool enough to keep the oil’s wear protection capability at the highest level achievable by that oil.
.
2. It is cool enough to provide critical cooling for engine components, which of course are directly oil cooled. Remember, engine components are only indirectly water cooled.
.
3. It is cool enough to keep most oils below their onset of thermal breakdown point.
.
But, motor oils do NOT stop working the instant they reach their onset of thermal breakdown point. However, it is not a good idea to run oil above its thermal breakdown point for extended periods of time. Because that will degrade its capability more and more as time/mileage goes on.

.

.

**************
.
In recent years there have been entirely too many wiped cam lobes and ruined lifter failures in traditional American flat tappet engines, even though a variety of well respected brand name parts were typically used. These failures involved people using various high zinc oils, various high zinc Break-In oils, various Diesel oils, and various oils with aftermarket zinc additives added to the oil. They believed that any high zinc oil concoction is all they needed for wear protection during flat tappet engine break-in and after break-in. But, all of those failures have proven over and over again, that their belief in high zinc was nothing more than a MYTH, just as my test data has shown.

.
A high level of zinc/phos is simply no guarantee of providing sufficient wear protection. And to make matters even worse, excessively high levels of zinc/phos can actually “cause” DAMAGE your engine, rather than “prevent” it. Motor Oil Industry testing has found that motor oils with more than 1,400 ppm ZDDP, INCREASED long-term wear. And it was also found that motor oils with more than 2,000 ppm ZDDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling (pitting and flaking). The ZDDP value is simply the average of the zinc and the phosphorus values, then rounded down to the nearest 100 ppm (parts per million).

.
From those failures where I was able to find out what specific oils were used, it turned out that those were oils I had already performed my Engineering Wear Protection Capability tests on. And all those oils had only provided poor wear protection capability, meaning that if they had looked at my test data before using those oils, they would have known in advance that their engines would be at significant risk of failure with those oils. And that is just what happened.
.
A number of people who have had those failures, and some had repeated failures, have contacted me, asking what they can do to prevent that failure in the future. I tell them to forget all that high zinc nonsense and look at my Wear Protection Ranking List. And to select any high ranking oil there, no matter how much zinc it has, because zinc quantity simply does NOT matter. The only thing that matters regarding wear protection, is the psi value each oil can produce in my testing. The higher the psi value, the better the wear protection. I recommend they use the SAME highly ranked oil for break-in and after break-in. It’s that simple.
.
WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN THAT ADVICE, NOT ONE PERSON HAS EVER COME BACK TO ME TO REPORT THAT MY RANKING LIST DID NOT WORK FOR THEM. Since my ranking list has worked in every case to prevent wiped flat tappet lobes and lifters, it can also work for you to provide the best possible wear protection for your engine. My test data is the real deal, it exactly matches real world experience, and it is the best and most complete motor oil comparison data you will ever find anywhere.
.
And for those people who have been able to use various high zinc oils without having trouble with their flat tappet engines, that only means that the oil they used had enough wear protection capability for the loads their engines saw at that time. It does not mean they were necessarily using a great oil. And it does not provide any information about how much reserve wear protection capability their oil provided, nor how their oil compares to other oils on the market.
.
But, there are some high zinc oils that do provide excellent wear protection. And you can see which ones they are, by looking at my ranking list below.
.
**********

.

LOOKING AT PETROLEUM QUALITY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA (PQIA) INFORMATION, OR  SENDING OIL SAMPLES TO TYPICAL MOTOR OIL LABS LIKE “ALS TRIBOLOGY” OR “BLACKSTONE LABS” IS NOT SUFFICIENT

What many people don’t understand is, that looking at PQIA information, or sending oil samples in to a typical motor oil lab, does NOT tell us everything we need to know about how well a motor oil performs. Some people think that if they look at PQIA on-line, or get a lab printout of their motor oil, that they know everything they need to know. But, that is simply NOT true. Here’s why.

PQIA information might be interesting to look at, but it doesn’t really provide any truly significant or meaningful information beyond what the API certifications of “reputable brands”, already tells us. The wind-up is that API has already done all that for you by granting the appropriate certification to various oils. If an oil’s performance was far enough off to be a problem, it would not meet the requirements for the specific API certification it was being considered for. So, all the end user has to do is look at the bottle of a “reputable brand” for the certification the oil has, and to change the oil at reasonable intervals, which for most street driven vehicles is ideally 5,000 miles. Doing that will provide an engine with the protection it needs in terms of acid neutralization and deposit and/or sludge build-up prevention. But, looking at PQIA, will NOT give you any information at all, about how well a given motor oil can provide wear protection, which is THE most important thing any motor oil does.

Motor oil lab printouts will only provide information such as the amount of metals, the amount of contaminants, the amount of additive package components in the oil, and its viscosity rating in centistokes (cSt) at 100*C (212*F). And the cost for this test is usually around $30.00 US per sample sent in.

According to a Royal Purple Motor Oil Engineer I spoke with a few years ago, he said only people outside of the Motor Oil Industry, use the unprofessional terminology of calling new oil lab tests, virgin oil analysis (VOA), and used oil lab tests, used oil analysis (UOA). The VOA and UOA references are commonly used on Internet Forum discussions about motor oil, even though they are not legitimate names. Even so, in order for the most people to follow along, I’ll continue to use that wrong terminology for a moment here.

For a VOA, you will NOT get any information on absolutely THE most important thing any motor oil does for your engine, and that is PREVENT WEAR. Everything else a motor oil does for your engine, comes AFTER that. There is not one thing in that lab printout that will tell you how good that oil is at preventing wear. And looking at the zinc and phosphorus levels is completely worthless, because as you will see below, those levels DO NOT predict an oil’s wear protection capability, even though countless people have been brainwashed to believe it does. Therefore, you still have no idea if that oil is any good at performing job number one for your engine. So, you are left with guessing, believing Advertising hype, or Internet chatter, as to which oil you should choose for your engine. In other words, you wasted $30.00 for the lab test, plus the cost of shipping, and your time, all for nothing.

If you have a lab printout from when an oil was brand new, and then you get a UOA of that exact same oil, you can compare those two printouts to see how the oil has changed during that particular change interval. There is definitely some value to that, for indications of engine health, how much of the factory additive package has been depleted, etc. But, it still doesn’t provide any meaningful direct information about how that motor oil compares to other motor oils in terms of wear protection. And if you do see extra metal quantity in the used oil that might be of concern, it is too late, because you are looking at results after the fact. Wear and/or damage has already begun. That is like closing the barn door after the horse already got out. And you still wouldn’t know if the extra metal is because of a poor choice of motor oils  or because of a mechanical problem.

So, you need something FAR BETTER than looking at PQIA info or motor oil lab printouts for selecting the best motor oil for your engine, if you are interested in the best possible wear protection for it.

—————

That something FAR BETTER, is the independent and unbiased Engineering testing I perform at a representative OPERATING OIL TEMPERATURE to establish motor oil wear protection capability.

Motor oils are derived from base oil stocks, which is a generic oil base that is modified with an additive package to produce a lubricant with the desired properties. A base stock oil with no additive package would perform quite poorly. Base oil stocks are classified by the API (American Petroleum Institute) and fall into one of the categories below:

.
• Group I and II – are conventional mineral oils derived from crude oil.

.

• Group III – is a highly refined conventional mineral oil made through a process called hydrocracking. This group of oil is allowed to be called a synthetic oil in North America.

.

• Group IV – are true synthetic oils, known as PAO (Polyalphaolefin).
.
• Group V – are synthetic base stocks other than PAO’s, which include esters and other compounds.
.
People on Internet discussions argue endlessly over the merits or lack thereof, of these oil Groups, to try and determine which oil type is best to use. But, they don’t even understand that the base oil does NOT determine an oil’s wear protection capability. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its proprietary additive package, which is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components. So, with my Engineering tests, you can bypass all that debate, and go directly to the results of how oils you find on Auto Parts Store shelves, actually perform when put to the test. My testing is a dynamic friction test under load, similar to how an engine dyno test is a dynamic HP/Torque test under load. Both tests show how their subjects truly perform in the real world, no matter what Brand names are involved, no matter what outrageous claims may have been made, and no matter what their spec sheets say.

The resulting breakthrough data used in the Wear Protection Ranking List is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. The data is the result of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the testing. I am only the messenger. The Science is what tells us how these oils perform. And no one can argue with Physics and Chemistry.

You can see my entire 254 motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List”, which EXACTLY matches real world severe over-heating experience, real world Track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance Street experience (test data validation doesn’t get any better than this), along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, that CANNOT be found anywhere else, by reading below.

.

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

.
BLOG TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Section 1 – Motor Oil “Wear Protection” Ranking List – which is determined by each oil’s film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance psi value, that results from being subjected to a dynamic friction test under load, at a representative operating temperature. The vast majority of the oils tested here, were tested just as they come, right out of the bottle. But, there are also some oils tested with aftermarket additives put in them. These additive tests were for informational purposes only, and are not generally recommended. Because aftermarket additives can ruin an oil’s carefully formulated original additive package, aside from what it may or may not do for its wear protection capability. It is always best to choose a good performing oil in the first place, that does not need any help.

Section 2 – Motor Oil Viscosity Selection

Section 3 – Motor Oil Thermal Breakdown Test Data

Section 4 – Motor Oil component quantity Lab Test results – includes the amount of zinc, phosphorus, detergent, acid neutralizer and more

Section 5 – Reserved for future Motor Oil Test Data

Section 6 – Detailed Motor Oil and Mechanical Tech Articles
NOTE: Some of the motor oil Articles were written before the most recently tested motor oils were added to the Wear Protection Ranking List in Section 1. The articles included are:

1. I-Beam vs H-Beam – which Connecting Rod is Best?

2. Rod Bolt Strength – what do we Really need?

3. Solid Roller Lifters – Bushings vs Needles, which is Best?

4. Camshaft Overlap vs LSA (Lobe Separation Angle)

5. Leak Down Test vs Compression Test, which is Best?

6. Can you really suck the Oil Pan dry?

7. Dynamic Compression Ratio (DCR) vs Static Compression Ratio (SCR)

8. 0W40 vs 5W30 vs 0W30

9. Aftermarket Zinc Additives – Do they Work?

10. Break-In Oils – Do we Really need them?

11. Can you always count on high zinc motor oil?

12. Diesel Oil – Is it the right choice for High Performance gasoline engines?

13. Do comparable zinc levels provide comparable wear protection?

14. Does Prolong Engine Treatment actually work?

15. Test Data on the newest Pennzoils made from Natural Gas

16. High Temp Motor Oil Wear Testing – Myth vs Reality

17. Do HTHS (High-Temperature/High-Shear) values provide any useful information about wear protection capability?

18.  Engineering Test Data on High Mileage Motor Oils

19. Engine Dyno HP vs Chassis Dyno HP

20. Std Volume oil pumps vs High Volume oil pumps – Is there really a HP difference?

21. Points Ignition vs Electronic Ignition

22.  How to choose your own Camshaft

23. Multi-viscosity motor oils are not exactly what some people think

24. Air conditioning isn’t just for cooling your vehicle

25. Recommended Oil Change Interval – For Automobiles “AND” Motorcycles, including Motor Oil Age Info

26. Failure Data from a Bushing type Solid Roller Lifter

27. Maximum Safe Piston Speed Redline

28. Eight 0W20 Oils Tested and Compared

29. Eliminating BMW M3/M5 Rod Bearing Failures

30. Five Lightweight Diesel Oils Tested and Compared

31. The Truth about Motor Oil Temperature from COLD to HOT and Wear Protection Capability

32. V-8 Head/Intake Alignment Procedure

33. Can Wet Clutch Motorcycles use “FAR SUPERIOR” Automotive Motor Oils?

34. How well do Traditional Heavy Duty Diesel oils perform, when they have the latest CK-4 certification?

35. PISTON TO CYLINDER CLEARANCE IS “NOT” WHAT MANY PEOPLE THINK IT IS

36.  Is Motor Oil Viscosity Index (VI) Useful Information?

37. Air Cooled Engines – Oil Viscosity Recommendation

38. Direct Injection “Only” Engines’ HUGE PROBLEM, and the meaning of API SN “PLUS”, and GM dexos1-“Gen 2”

39. Which Motor Oil is best, 5W30 or 10W30?

40. Can the sound of a Failing Wheel Bearing, actually be SOMETHING ELSE?”

41. Why do some OEM’s call for super thick motor oil in only “Certain” versions of a particular engine?

42. Should a MAF (Mass Air Flow) Sensor screen be left in or taken out?

43. Keeping the Battery properly charged in Modern Computer Controlled Vehicles that sit much of the time

44. Which Motor Oil is best, 5W20 or 5W30?

45. Is it harmful to only occasionally run an engine, due to residual oil runoff causing excessive cold start-up wear?

46. Are Auto Manufacturer Advertised HP numbers accurate?

47. Can vehicles that call for 87 octane regular gasoline, benefit from switching to higher octane premium?

48. Can street vehicle performance be increased by switching to a low restriction K&N air filter?

49.  35 Oil Filters cut open, from 21 different Brands, compared and evaluated for manufacturer commonality, quality of design, quality of construction, and ranked from Best to Worst

50.  What is the “BEST” way to warm-up a stone-cold engine? Plus, what is the “BEST” way to help prevent engine sludge?

51.  The most common form of Severe/Extreme Engine Operation that most people aren’t aware of

52.  General Motor Oil Selection Recommendations for Various Applications

53. Are vehicles that call for 0W16 Motor Oil, well protected with such thin oil?

54.  The Best Way to ensure proper lubrication of classic flat tappet cams, in engines that sit for extended periods of time. And how those cams are actually lubricated.

55. Automotive and Motorcycle “Gear Oil/Transmission Oil” Test Data

56. PSI Value is NOT the only thing to consider when Selecting the Best Motor Oil

57.  High Tech Car Wax is NOT as great as expected

58.  There is MORE to Acceleration Performance than just Horsepower

59.  Why does 540 RAT “NOT” use an ASTM Test Procedure as the basis for his Engineering Test on Motor Oil?

60. Test Data on the new 5W30 API SP/ILSAC GF-6A Motor Oils

61. Test Data on Marine 4-Stroke Boat Engine Motor Oils

62. Motor Oil Viscosity effects on Oil Pressure and Oil Temperature

63. The Proper Start-Up/Break-In Procedure to use after a Flat Tappet engine rebuild to avoid Wiped Lobes and How Flat Tappet Cams are REALLY Lubricated

64. “OIL CATCH CAN” – Do Direct Injection “ONLY” engines, Dual Injection engines, Port Injection engines, or Racing engines benefit from using one?

65.  The New “Variable Displacement” Oil Pumps Evaluated – Surprising Results!!

66.  HIGH MILEAGE motor oil compared to Standard motor oil

67.  Ranking List Guide for Selecting the BEST Heavy Duty Diesel Oil.

68.  Are EV’s (Electric Vehicles) worth Considering?

69.  Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines

70.  FINALLY!!! Used Motor Oil “AGE” Test Data

71.  5W30 Quaker State Full Synthetic Motor Oil provides “MORE Horsepower” AND “THE BEST Wear Protection” Ever Recorded

72.  Ethanol-Gasoline Fuel Blends

73. UPDATE – HOW TO MAKE USE OF THE POORLY DESIGNED Newer High Tech Smart Battery Charger/Maintainers that are by themselves, a MAJOR STEP BACKWARDS

74.  The ULTIMATE Motor Oil SMACKDOWN – “High Zinc”, 10W30 Driven GP-1, Synthetic Blend Racing Oil vs Modern, “Low Zinc”, All-Time Champion 5W30 Quaker State Full Synthetic, API SP

75.  FINALLY – The “CURE” for Flat Tappet Cam Lobe Failures

.
.
***********
.
TYPICAL GEAR HEAD MINDSET vs ENGINEER MINDSET

A typical Gear Head’s mindset regarding new flat tappet engine Break-In is, “What I’ve been doing works, so I don’t want to change anything”. An Engineer’s mindset is, “No matter what you’ve been doing, let’s see if we can move forward and improve things, making them “better” than they were before”.

An example of this regarding motor oil is, a typical Gear Head has been using some high zinc oil, or some oil with an aftermarket zinc additive also poured in. And with that, he “thinks” he has made a good oil selection. But, using oil like that, knowing nothing more than the zinc level, requires a careful and elaborate break-in procedure, if there is any hope of not wiping any lobes in a flat tappet engine. He’s managed to get by with this, so he thinks he has it all figured out.

But, when his motor oil concoction is put through Engineering Wear Protection Testing, the results often show it to be a low performer regarding film strength load carrying capability, no matter how much zinc is present. As a result, that oil ranks rather low on my Wear Protection Ranking List, and means that it provided only a very low Margin of Safety. With this being the case, the engine was at significant risk of failure. So, he has essentially been playing Russian Roulette with his engine, without even knowing it.

For those not familiar with the term, Margin of Safety refers to how much capability your motor oil provides, vs how much capability you actually need to prevent wear and/or damage/failure. The higher the Margin of Safety, the more reserve wear protection capability you have available, and the safer your engine is.

The careful and elaborate flat tappet break-in procedures that Gear Heads typically use, is nothing more than a crutch to try and prevent wiped lobes with low performing motor oils. A fair number of people have been lucky enough to get away with this, while some others have been wiping lobes. And wiped flat tappet lobes have been all too common over the past few years, even though name brand, highly respected parts are being used. It can be a hit or miss situation, regarding wiping lobes or not wiping lobes. But, it doesn’t have to be this way, if better performing oils are chosen.

And keep in mind that so-called Break-Oils with their typical low wear protection capability are absolutely NOT required for proper break-in and ring sealing. That has been proven over the past couple of decades by numerous Factories using highly ranked 5W30 Mobil 1 synthetic oil in their brand new performance vehicles. They break-in and seal their rings just fine, and of course come with a warranty.

Being an Engineer with clear improvement in mind to solve the iffy situation of wiping lobes or not wiping lobes, I recommend switching to different motor oils that rank far higher on my Wear Protection Ranking List, no matter how much zinc they have. The only thing that truly matters is an oil’s film strength load carrying capability, NOT merely how much zinc it has. Using much higher ranking motor oils with their much higher wear protection capability, means that special break-in procedures ARE NOT REQUIRED. And an engine will be far safer due to the better motor oils providing a much higher Margin of Safety.

The Engineering mindset that resulted in the Wear Protection Ranking List, is the whole point of this Blog. So now, we no longer have to guess which oil is best. We have the data available at our finger tips to show us how various motor oils compare head to head, regarding wear protection capability.

And since you have to buy motor oil anyway, why not use this Engineering Wear Protection Test Data to help you select a high performing motor oil with excellent wear protection? The engine you save may be your own.
.
.
=================================

.
SECTION 1- MOTOR OIL “WEAR PROTECTION” RANKING LIST.

.
THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT thing a motor oil does for your engine, is prevent wear. Everything else it does for your engine, comes AFTER that. But, I have found that there is a tremendous amount of misinformation and misunderstanding about motor oil. The worst of all is that a lot of people, even those at Cam Companies, blindly accept the MYTH about needing high levels of zinc in motor oil in order to have sufficient wear protection. But, that line of thinking is NOT based on technical fact, and is simply FALSE. So, at the beginning of 2012, I began Tribology Research using motor oil “Wear Testing” equipment, to explore the facts regarding the wear prevention capabilities of motor oil. For those not familiar with the terminology, Tribology means the study of friction, lubrication, and wear between moving surfaces.
.
I’m a total perfectionist when it comes to technical issues. And those who know me personally, know that I would never jeopardize my reputation or my integrity, by posting test data that would turn the Hobby/Industry on its ear, unless I was absolutely sure about the data I put out there. Of course I’ve always known my carefully generated data is completely accurate. And to make that clear to the world, you will see below that my test data EXACTLY matches real world severe over-heating experience, real world race track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance street experience.

.

OIL TEST DATA AND SEVERE OVER-HEATING EXPERIENCE ARE IDENTICAL

I received the following feedback from one of my Oil Test Data Blog readers:

Hi RAT, I want to share a real world experience about one of the oils you have tested.

About a year ago, my son was driving our old 1999 Toyota Camry, with 230,000 miles on it at the time, in heat of summer. And you know how young kids are today, they don’t know very much about how to look after cars. So, he drives about 45 miles to his destination, and parks it.

By this time, because of a leak from the water pump, most of the coolant is gone. But, because he shuts the engine off and walks away without noticing the leak, the engine cools off. The next day when he wants to drive home, there is no coolant left in engine. But, he doesn’t know that, so he starts it up and drives away. After driving about 30 miles on the freeway, it overheats so much that the engine stalls. That’s when I get the call!

After I towed the car home, I filled radiator and noticed the leak from water pump, and the head gasket was leaking into the combustion chamber. So, I knew it had over-heated really bad, TWICE. I expected that the pistons and valves must have been damaged due to the extreme heat. But, after I took the head off, the valves and cylinder walls looked in surprisingly good shape. After I put it back together, it ran as good as before. And it now has 244,000 miles on it.

I then knew, the oil that was in it at the time, played very important role, and had prevented the pistons from being damaged. BUT, that oil wasn’t in your ranking list at the time. So, I always wondered where that oil would it rank if ever tested?

Guess what? Now that you have tested that oil, it ranked near the very top of the Ranking List. It is 5W30 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage (red bottle).

So if anyone doesn’t want to believe in your oil test ranking, I have to tell them they better believe it. I am positive that it was the high wear protection capability of that motor oil that kept the engine from further damage!!

His experience shows precisely what I’ve talked about, when I have said that having extra reserve wear protection capability from highly ranked oils, may well save your engine when bad things happen.

.
OIL TEST DATA AND RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE ARE IDENTICAL

A June 2018 Testimonial regarding Amsoil 5W30 Signature Series, was sent by a Blog reader from Greece, which proved ONCE AGAIN that my motor oil Engineering Test Data “EXACTLY MATCHES” real world racing experience, as I have always said. It also proves ONCE AGAIN, that all my critics are DEAD WRONG, and have no idea what they are talking about, regarding motor oil and its performance capabilities. If you want the FACTS about motor oil, you need to read this Blog.

For reference, at the time of this writing Amsoil 5W30 Signature Series, produced 134,352 psi, and is ranked 2nd for oils “just as they come, right out of the bottle” (only Amsoil 0W20 Signature Series, was able to slightly beat it), out of 233 oils tested so far. And Amsoil 10W30 Dominator Racing oil, produced a far lower 97,118psi, is ranked 65th. The higher the psi value an oil can produce, the better the wear protection. Here is what he said in his Testimonial:

****

Hi (again) 540 Rat,
I ‘ve seen several times, as a Rally spectator ‘n’ fan, a Skoda Fabia S2000 participating in Greek Rally Championship, sponsored by Amsoil, and after reading your blog, the question “which specific Amsoil do they use, in a N/A 1,996 cc = 121c.in. racing motor running up to 9500r.p.m. and approx. 300hp…” emerged. So, I took myself to the service park with the intention to ask team engineers about that. In fact, I didn’t need to do so, because I saw them in an oil change using Amsoil 5W30 Signature Series oil, instead of Amsoil Dominator Racing oil. I found that this was kind-a-weird, so I decided to ask them “why so”.

Chief engineer told me that every time they need to rebuild the engine, they measure accurately, all geometric parameters such as clearances, ring’s width, cams heights etc. in order to replace if something was out of specs, and after 3800 racing kms (2000+miles), they decided to use Amsoil 5W30 Signature Series oil, because all mentioned components’ wear was close to non-measurable from one to the next rebuild procedure.

In fact, that’s -in my opinion- another proof that your data are “online” with real world’s facts. Of course, a high pressure oil pump and FIA approved oil cooler are provided. But apart from these, it’s still a highly stressed engine, revving most of its lifespan between 6,000 and 9,500 rpm, “feeding” via gearbox all 4 wheels.

The question remains: why not use Amsoil Dominator Racing oil…
(To mention rally team’s name, in order to avoid “suspicious minds” from “bad thoughts”: “Cabilis Performance”)

Keep doing great things,
E.C.
Greece

My final comment about this Testimonial: Amsoil Signature Series oil has performed far better than Amsoil Dominator Racing oil, in my Engineering tests. So, the obvious choice is their Signature Series oil, if you want the absolute best wear protection. Perhaps this Race Team has been reading my Blog.

**********

Here’s another example of my Engineering Test Data and Racing experience being identical

.
An oval track dirt racer (his class is extremely competitive, so he asked that his name be left out) on the SpeedTalk Forum runs a 7200 rpm, solid flat tappet, 358ci Small Block Chevy motor, with valve spring pressures of about 160 on the seat and 400 open, that are shimmed to .060” from coil bind. The rules and the combination of parts, were causing him to experience repeated cam failures while using high zinc, semi-synthetic 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil. Lab Report Data from testing performed by Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada, showed that this oil contains 1557 ppm zinc, 1651 ppm phosphorus, and 3 ppm moly. In spite of this being a high zinc oil, that most folks would “assume” provides excellent wear protection, he experienced wiped lobe cam failure about every 22 to 25 races.

.
A race consists of one 8 lap (a lap is typically 3/8 mile) heat race and one 20 lap feature race, plus any caution laps. If you add it all up, 25 races only total about 281 miles at the point of cam failure. So, that is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying all along about high zinc levels being absolutely NO GUARANTEE of adequate wear protection. And my test data on this 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil, shows that it produces a wear protection capability of only 71,206 psi, which puts it in the MODERATE wear protection category, and it ranks a very disappointing 182nd out of 233 oils tested so far. That means of course that there are 181 different oils I’ve tested that provide better wear protection.

.
So, my test data ACCURATELY PREDICTED EXACTLY what he experienced during racing. And that is, that this oil does not provide high enough wear protection capability to provide a sufficient margin of safety for this engine’s operating conditions. Looking at my “Wear Protection Ranking List” and choosing a much higher ranked oil, would have prevented all those cam failures. Repeatedly suffering cam failures in motors with so little time on them, may have been considered by some folks to be a normal consumption of parts back in the ‘60’s or ‘70’s. But, in the 21st Century that we live in now, by any measure, that is for sure premature failure. We no longer have to accept that as the cost of doing business, because we can do far better now.

.
So, he switched to the super micro polished billet lifters from PPPC and the cam life went up to 40 races, which was an improvement since he could now go 450 miles between failures. But, that was still clearly unacceptable. Then later on, he started using “Oil Extreme Concentrate” as an additive to the 10W30 Brad Penn, and he’s never lost a lobe on a cam since. Adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate” completely eliminated his premature wiped lobe cam failures. At the time of this writing, the motor had gone 70+ Races without issue, and was still doing fine. This “Oil Extreme Concentrate” is one additive that actually works as advertised, and makes low ranked oils far better than they were to begin with. And that is PRECISELY WHAT MY MOTOR OIL TEST DATA PREDICTED as well.

.
Here’s how. I also added “Oil Extreme Concentrate” to 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic, as part of my motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” research. And with 2.0 OZ of “Oil Extreme Concentrate” added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability shot up by a BREATH TAKING 56%, to an amazing 111,061psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category, and now ranks it a jaw dropping 26th out of 233 oils tested so far. So, it moved up a whopping 156 ranking positions, just by adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate”. This totally accounts for the reason all his cam lobe failures were eliminated.

.
In addition to this, a NASCAR team sent me three high zinc synthetic Mobil 1 Racing Oils for testing, because they were having wear problems when using these oils (more on that below). Lab Report Data from testing performed on these oils by Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada, showed that on average, these oils contained 1774 ppm zinc, 1658 ppm phosphorus, and 1444 ppm moly. And because these were all high zinc oils, most folks would “assume” that they’d provide sufficient wear protection. However, the results of my testing showed that these oils only provided POOR WEAR PROTECTION CAPABILITY. So, they were NOT a good choice for their racing application, which confirmed why they had wear problems. This is yet another perfect example of what I’ve been saying about high zinc levels being NO GUARENTEE of adequate wear protection. And this example clearly showed once again that my test data EXACTLY MATCHED what this race team had experienced on the track.

.
So, these examples PROVE once and for all, that my test data EXACTLY MATCHES REAL WORLD RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE, and that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL, just as I’ve said all along. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils. So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world. And if anyone thinks my data comes from flawed methodology, they are not paying attention, and need to reread everything again more carefully.

.

OIL TEST DATA AND WIPED LOBE AT BREAK-IN EXPERIENCE ARE IDENTICAL

.
A guy on the Corvette Forum, whose name I will leave out, built a replica 454, flat tappet LS6 BBC engine for a 1970 Corvette, using a Crane Cams blueprint LS6 cam and Crane solid lifters. He used Brad Penn Break-In oil, then after initial break-in, he changed the oil to Brad Penn 10W40. Then after about 100 miles he heard a tapping noise. After looking into it, he found a wiped cam lobe and ruined lifter. There were metal particles throughout the entire engine, causing devastation which had damaged the rod and main bearings, the oil pump, and the crankshaft, thus requiring another very costly and time consuming total rebuild.

.
He has built many engines over the years, always using Crane Cams solid or hydraulic cams and never had a failure. So, he’s an experienced engine builder, used parts from Crane Cams, a reputable Industry Leader, and used oil with plenty of zinc. Problem is, he is among those who think any oil is fine, as long as it has plenty of zinc in it. However, my Engineering tests of the Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, Break-In oil, shows that it produces a film strength load carrying capacity of only 56,020 psi, which ranks it 223rd out of 233 oils tested so far, and puts it in the UNDESIRABLE wear protection category, even though it’s high in zinc. And my Engineering tests of the 10W40 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, shows that it produces a film strength load carrying capacity of only 57,864 psi, which ranks it 219th out of 233 oils tested so far, and also puts it in the UNDESIRABLE wear protection category, even though it has a high zinc level. That of course means that 222 other oils provide better wear protection than his Break-In oil, and 218 other oils provide better wear protection than his after break-in oil.

.
So, this is another example where my test data accurately predicted that using these particular high zinc oils, that provided such low wear protection capability, would put a flat tappet engine at extreme risk of failure during and after break-in. And of course very expensive engine failure is exactly what happened. Selecting a highly ranked oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, no matter how much zinc is in it, would have provided the engine with far better wear protection. With so many other excellent performing motor oils on the market, it makes no sense to choose oils that are ranked so low on my list, even if they do have a lot of zinc in them. Because high zinc levels are absolutely no guarantee of sufficient wear protection. The line of thinking that you always need a high zinc level, is nothing more than a total MYTH.

.

OIL TEST DATA AND HIGH PERFORMANCE STREET EXPERIENCE ARE IDENTICAL

.
And here is one example of a flat tappet High Performance Street Hotrod engine operating just fine with low zinc oils, just as my Test Data predicts. A buddy built a 500 HP, flat tappet, solid lifter, 383ci small block Chevy for his ’69 Corvette several years ago. He asked me what oil he should use to break it in and to use later on as well. He wanted to use a conventional oil at that time, that was affordable, and readily available. So, I suggested he use conventional low zinc 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN, that provided 95,392 psi in my testing (this was an earlier version which has since been replaced), which put it in the OUTSTANDING wear protection category.

He used that oil from day one with no elaborate break-in procedure at all. He just drove the car. It is his only car, so it is his daily driver, which he always drives like he stole it. And he has never had any issue with his cam or lifters. Then maybe a year or so ago he decided he wanted to switch to a synthetic oil that was affordable and readily available, so I suggested he go with low zinc synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN, that provided 105,875 psi in my testing, which put it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category.

He has used that oil ever since and still has not had any issue at all with his cam or lifters. He has tens of thousands of hard Hotrod miles on that cam and lifter combo, which is far more miles than most weekend only Hotrods will ever see, and he has never suffered one bit from not using a high zinc oil. So, this is yet another example of the fact that high zinc oils are NOT needed for sufficient wear protection, even in flat tappet engines, and not even for break-in. The only thing that matters, is an oil’s film strength load carrying capacity. And that is precisely the data my Motor Oil Testing ranks.
.

.

MORE PROOF THAT MODERN LOW ZINC OILS THAT PRODUCED HIGH PSI VALUES IN MY MOTOR OIL ENGINEERING TEST, WORK GREAT IN TRADITIONAL FLAT TAPPET ENGINES, JUST AS PREDICTED
.
From K. N., February 2020
Hi 540Rat,
I’m a long time reader of your blog, and have commented here occasionally. Anyways, just to provide some more “correlation” with your test data, I now have 11,500 miles on my new cam, and have used Mobil 1 0w-40 European formula FS the entire time (except for the first 200 miles on Castrol GTX 10w-30). The cam has .450 lift, around 270 degrees duration, valve springs are set at 120lbs closed and around 270lbs open, with titanium retainers. Hydraulic flat tappet lifters and stout pushrods, and is a daily driven 1963 Corvair Spyder. Peak boost that I’ve seen with it so far is around 22psi, and have taken it up to 6,000 rpm numerous times now. I figure that if I was going to have ruined another cam for oil reasons I would have done it by now, because I haven’t been exactly nice to it… and in fact, it runs like a watch, smooth and quiet like its supposed to be. No oil leaks, minimal oil consumption, and the oil stays nice and clean. The oil viscosity has turned out to be nearly perfect for my purposes, having run it year round.
.
===============
.
Hi K,

It’s good to hear from you again. Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate that. It’s nice to know how well your classic flat tappet Corvair engine is doing with one of my Highly Ranked modern low zinc oils. That’s yet another example of my Engineering Test Data exactly predicting and matching real world experience. And proves once again, just like I’ve said all along, that high zinc oils are not required for flat tappet cams. The only thing that matters, is the psi value a motor oil can produce in my Engineering motor oil torture test.

And I’m glad to hear that you find my Blog interesting and useful enough to be long time reader. That’s why I do all this.

Thanks again,
540 RAT

.
.
PROOF YET AGAIN THAT MODERN HIGHLY RANKED LOW ZINC SYNTHETIC OIL CAN BE USED JUST FINE FOR BREAK-IN
.
From B. B. February 2020
I just built a 489 cubic inch all forged Big Block Chevy engine. I used synthetic 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability (QSUD) oil for break-in and it’s running great. It’s in my jet boat.
Thank you for your time.

=============
Hi there,
I’m glad to hear that your new Big Block Chevy engine broke-in just fine with modern low zinc synthetic 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability oil, that is highly ranked on my Wear Protection Ranking List, just like I said it would. I appreciate your feedback, thanks.

That should give the “high zinc break-in oil” guys a shock, to see even more additional proof that they were WRONG all along about needing high zinc break-in oil.

Take care,
540 RAT
.

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

Not only does my oil testing methodology and the resulting data match up EXACTLY with real world severe over-heating experience, real world race track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance street experience, but it has also been endorsed by the following well respected Industry sources:

.
1. An Engineering Ph.D. who is the most highly respected Engineer, Car builder and Tech Guru on a popular Automotive Forum, asked me if he could include my Oil Testing Info in a list of Tech Papers written by well respected Industry authors, that he makes available to enthusiasts. And he told me, “I’m 100% on board with backing you with my endorsement on your testing: I run a Propulsion Testing Laboratory for a major Aerospace Company, so I’m in the testing business. Your methods and approach are in accordance with sound engineering testing methods, and are not arguable by intelligent people”. He also said this about my Oil Testing info, “This is excellent stuff, and I’ve already sent copies of this to my engineering colleagues”.

.
Then later, even though he had no direct connection to my oil testing, he received hate mail and threats for backing me. This behavior came from disrespectful people who are on the wrong side of the facts. They are high zinc level “believers”, even though the facts have proven over and over again that the whole idea of depending on high zinc levels for wear protection, is only an outdated myth. Sadly, discussing motor oil can become emotionally charged just like Religion and Politics. But, Engineering test data is NOT determined by emotion, it is determined by the facts that come out of the Physics and Chemistry involved. After this ordeal, he’d had enough, and asked that I no longer use his name in connection with my oil testing. Of course I respect his wishes and will no longer mention his name here. I feel bad that he was subjected to this totally uncalled for behavior. However, these shameful events will have no affect on my ongoing oil testing. For me, there is no emotion involved with the oil testing I perform. I simply report the results exactly the way they came out, good or bad.

.
2. A NASCAR engine supplier out of North Carolina (they did not want their name associated with any Internet motor oil arguments that may come up, so they asked that their name be left out, which I honored) was so impressed with the motor oil “Wear Protection Capability Testing” I perform, that they sent me 3 NASCAR Racing Oils they use, for testing. They valued my testing efforts enough to include me in what they do, which is quite an endorsement, considering the Professional level of Racing they are involved in. They had been seeing some wear issues with those oils, and wanted to see if I could shed any light on that by testing them. I did test those oils for them, and the test results showed that those oils did not provide acceptable wear protection capability, which accounted for the wear problems they were having. So, they have selected other oils to use, and their wear problems have gone away. If I had tested those oils before they started using them, I could have saved them time, money and grief.

.
3. The “Oil Extreme” Oil Company was so impressed with the detail and accuracy of my oil testing, that they wanted to hire me to perform product development research testing for them. That was clearly a major endorsement of the testing I perform. But, I declined taking any money from them, because I won’t be tied to any Oil Company by money. That way I can maintain my independent and unbiased status. I report the test results just how they come out, good or bad. And there is no way I’d allow any Oil Company to influence anything I report. I did however, agree to perform testing for them for free, along with other testing I perform. And those results will be posted along with other test results.
.
4. Ford Motor Company changed the motor oil spec on their 2021 High Performance V-8 Mustangs from 5W20 which had been the spec for years, to 5W30 which readers of my Blog know that I have been recommending for most water-cooled, gasoline engines for years. So, Ford has either been reading my Blog, or they independently arrived at the same conclusion I did years ago. Either way, I am proud to see that Ford and I are now on the same page.
.
5. John Deere Engineering thought so highly of my Engineering Test Data, that they have sent links out to my Blog. John Deere is a major manufacturer of Heavy equipment for Agriculture, Construction, Forestry, all the way down to lawn care equipment. I am proud that John Deere thought my Blog was worthy of that.
.
In addition to that, my oil test data has also been validated and backed-up by a total of FOUR other independent Industry sources. They are as follows:

.
1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard, whose own test data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing, has concluded that more zinc in motor oil can be damaging, more zinc does NOT provide today’s best wear protection, and that using zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.

.
2. The GM Oil Report titled, “Oil Myths from GM Techlink”, concluded that high levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection.

.
3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, “More than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil”, concluded that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer wear protection.

.
4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company:
There is such a thing as too much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will “tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection. Only so much is utilized. We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP.

.
Those who are familiar with my test data, know that my test results came up with the exact same results stated by all four of those independent sources. So, this is an example where motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” using oil testing equipment, engine dyno testing, Motor Oil Industry testing, and proper motor oil research using only the facts, from a total of five (including my own) independent sources, all converged to agree and come to the same exact conclusion. Back-up validation proof, doesn’t get any better than this.

.
So, with all those sources in total agreement, that should provide more than enough proof to anyone, that my data is absolutely correct, and that it DOES NOT come from flawed methodology, as some have said simply because they didn’t like or didn’t understand the results. The fact is, scientific test data is not determined by emotion, it is determined by the facts that are a result of the Physics and Chemistry involved. And anyone questioning any one of those sources, questions them all, as well as the Physics and Chemistry that determined all those identical results. And no sensible person would try to argue against Physics and Chemistry. Because that is a battle no man can win.

.
******************

.
Of course, many folks, including Enthusiasts, Hotrodders, Racers, Builders, Cam Companies, etc, have always been conditioned to believe that high zinc levels in motor oil are a must for sufficient wear protection in High Performance engines. And of course there are a number of oils available that say something along the lines of “Extra Zinc for Extra Protection”. So, a lot of those folks just cannot bring themselves to accept the fact that high zinc levels are NOT what they are cracked up to be. They feel compelled to believe the claims on those bottles of oil and the Marketing/Advertising claims made by the Oil Companies that provide those high zinc oils.

.
But, people need to consider the following. Those Oil Companies are in business to make money. That’s it. So, they put a product on the market that they feel there is a demand for, and will make them money. As a result, they will say “ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING”, to move that product, which will help their bottom line. So, high zinc loving people need to stop and consider that for a moment. The Oil Companies have a vested interest in telling people what they want to hear, so they will buy their oil. Therefore, they don’t hesitate to make misleading claims and false advertising. When it comes to motor oil, there is no such thing as truth in advertising.

.
Oil Company claims about the benefit of high zinc levels in motor oil is NOT based on actual fact. Extra zinc cannot physically provide extra wear protection, because zinc simply DOES NOT work that way. Zinc is used up a little at a time as it is sacrificed to help protect against wear. More zinc will take longer to become depleted, simply because there is more there to use up. It’s the same idea as more gas in your tank will take longer to run out, but more gas in your tank cannot physically make more HP.

.
These high zinc motor oil producing Oil Companies NEVER provide any test data to prove that their high zinc oils always provide better wear protection than ordinary modern low zinc street oils. They can’t do it, because it’s NOT TRUE. So, high zinc believers are only embracing smoke and mirrors, nothing else. And actual dynamic motor oil friction tests under load, PROVE that the need for high zinc levels is simply NOT TRUE. That is why I started testing motor oil, so that I could separate the facts from the fiction.
.
Motor Oil Company Advertising claims are only hype and hot air, but actual test data is the real thing. If I test a modern low zinc API certified oil against a high zinc oil, and the modern API certified low zinc oil clearly outperforms the high zinc oil in terms of wear protection, how can the high zinc lovers honestly believe that the high zinc oil is better? How could that high zinc oil magically perform better in an engine, when it was worse in testing? And if I test two high zinc oils, and one does well and one does not, how can the high zinc lovers believe that all high zinc oils are always good?

.
So, high zinc lovers need to do a little soul searching and ask themselves why they want to believe something that does NOT stand-up to real world testing? Keep in mind that testing is so important and valuable, that multi-million dollar corporate decisions are made, based on test data. Not only that, but Racers test engine and chassis setups at the track all the time. And they believe what the test results tell them, because that’s the only way they have to know what really works and what doesn’t. So, it makes no sense to disregard oil testing, when virtually all other types of testing are taken as Gospel.

.

——

.

My Motor Oil Engineering Test Data is breakthrough information that can’t be found anywhere else, which finally allows us to directly compare the wear protection capability of various motor oils. Engineering Test Data drives the world, yet there are some high zinc loving critics who just can’t understand the value of this Engineering Test Data. So, they try to tear it down with the emotion that is often found in discussions of Religion or Politics. But, by them rejecting meaningful motor oil information, they are only hurting themselves.

In fact, it is quite clear that most of the time, they don’t even bother to read the information I provide. They just make negative comments right off the top, completely unaware of the information provided. Unfortunately for them, that is their loss, because they will have to continue selecting their oil based on the incorrect thinking that zinc level is all they need to know. And in doing so, they will more often than not, end up with far less wear protection than they think they have, which often results in wiped flat tappet lobes. Some people are their own worst enemies. However, for technically savvy folks who do grasp the value of my motor oil film strength/load carrying capability test data, FACTUAL information is included in the Blog below.

It is not a matter of agreeing with my data or not agreeing with it, because the data used to create my Wear Protection Ranking List is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. The data, as mentioned above, is the result of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the testing. I am only the messenger. The Science is what tells us how these oils perform. And no sensible person would try to argue against Physics and Chemistry. Science is absolute whether people like it or not, and emotion cannot change it.

So, think long and hard before believing anything critics say when they try to discredit my Motor Oil Engineering Test Data. There are always some who try, but fail in their attempt. They are not actually arguing with me, even if they think they are. They are actually arguing against the Science of Physics and Chemistry. Who do you think will win that battle? And ask them how they figure they know more than what the Science of Physics and Chemistry proves. Ask them what their qualifications are. Ask them what testing they have ever done.

They are typically high zinc lovers who just can’t accept the fact that what they’ve always believed about the need for high zinc oils, is only an Old Wives Tale MYTH. So, they get upset and go out of their way trying to undermine anything that goes against what they have been brainwashed to believe about high zinc oils. But, emotion does not determine the Engineering results of how good any particular oil is.

These naysayers cannot factually back-up anything they say. They think they are motor oil experts simply because they have done a bunch of Internet reading. They will sometimes make a big deal about what is in the base oil. They will sometimes provide links to lame Internet articles, which are often just a lab test of a single individual zinc component, showing what it did in that particular lab test. But, that is not any actual motor oil that you buy and pour into your engine. It may be somewhat interesting to read, but that type of test does not does not take into account the countless formula variations and synergistic effects found in the actual motor oils that are available on the market. Therefore, you are only looking at a single data point of a test that is not even what will end up in your engine. Or in other words, worthless information that many zinc lovers falsely believe, is the last word on motor oil. That is NOT how Engineering works. And lot of their lame Internet articles are nothing more than one author copying from the same worthless source material as other authors.

And if that isn’t bad enough, some information they throw out there as Gospel is only advertising hype from a motor oil’s bottle or website. As mentioned above, it is no secret that Motor Oil Companies are among the worst for false advertising. The absolute worst motor oils on the market, and the absolute best motor oils on the market, make the same claims about how wonderful they are. So, the claims made on motor oil bottles and websites would only be taken as truthful, by gullible people who are not Technically savvy.

Then these naysayers will also sometimes use the oil recommendations from Cam Companies as support for their position on what oil to use. Problem is, just because Cam Companies sell cams, does not mean they know the first thing about motor oil. They are simply staffed by people who are also brainwashed to believe that any high zinc oil will provide all the wear protection necessary for flat tappet cams. But, the proof that they are clueless about motor oil, is the fact that even the leading Cam Companies still have flat tappet lobes getting wiped, when people use the oils they recommend. And those oils are typically the oils that have tested very poorly in my Motor Oil Engineering Wear Protection Testing. On top of that, Cam Companies often do not even employ Degreed Mechanical Engineers. So, it comes as no surprise that they supply bad information as to what oils to use. Wiped flat tappet lobes continue to happen over and over again, when people use high zinc oils that produce poor results in my testing. It’s time to take notice of that.

The people who recommend poor performing motor oils, believe if they haven’t lost a lobe while using a certain oil, that it must be great oil. But, they just don’t know, what they don’t know. That only means the oil they used provided “enough” protection for the particular application that didn’t fail. But, that does not tell them anything about how much extra protection they had beyond that. So, their “opinion” of that oil is not a good technical evaluation of its capability. That would be like them telling you that an engine making 750 HP, is good as long as it has rods in it that can withstand 751 HP. Yeah, it might not throw a rod, or maybe it will. But, no technically savvy person would want to run a margin of safety that close.

It’s the same idea with the oil you choose to run. Don’t run an oil with a margin of safety that close. My Motor Oil Engineering Test Data, allows us see how different oils truly compare to each other, so we can run a substantial margin of safety to provide the best possible wear protection for our engines. So, before you consider following the bad advice others give about the oil they only “think” is good, read the real world facts about motor oil in this Oil Test Data Blog, then decide for yourself who is providing factual motor oil information that you can actually use to your advantage.

People who want the facts about which motor oils are good and which are not so good, want to see unbiased and independent test data. And that is exactly what my motor oil film strength/load carrying capability data provides. I back-up everything I say with that hard Engineering test data that exactly matches real world experience. It matches real world experience because my test data is the real deal, which accurately predicts what we can expect from the oils we buy. I test the actual motor oils that we buy and pour into our engines. So, my test data comes entirely from real “on-the-market” motor oils, which is what truly matters.

——

.
It’s been said that I’m the motor oil Police, because I discover and expose false motor oil claims and misleading motor oil advertising, with my test results that show the FACTS. I don’t sell motor oil, so it doesn’t make any difference to me, what oil people choose to run. But, people need to understand that some high zinc oils do provide very good wear protection, while many other high zinc oils do not. And without looking at the test data, you cannot tell which is which, until perhaps it’s too late. In fact, MANY WIPED FLAT TAPPET LOBES COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, INCLUDING DURING BREAK-IN, if people had not blindly believed the MYTH that all high zinc oils provide all the wear protection they need. Because nothing could be further from the truth.

.
So, the folks who choose to use only high zinc oils NO MATTER WHAT the test result FACTS show us, are only fooling themselves. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, ignoring the FACTS is their loss, and depending on the particular oil they choose, they are likely NOT getting the wear protection they THINK they are. If you value your engine, wouldn’t you prefer to choose the motor oil that can REALLY provide the best wear protection, based on test data FACTS, rather than the old incorrect high zinc MYTH? Don’t believe what the high zinc lovers say, because they are only trying to justify what they “believe”, even though they have NO PROOF what so ever, to backup what they say. On the other hand, I backup everything I say. So, read the FACTS, then make your own decision.

.
******************************

.
I was very dissatisfied with the ASTM test procedures I reviewed. Some called for testing at 100*F (NOT 100*C), which is way too COLD and is therefore NOT representative of real world temperatures experienced by a running engine, where it spends 99% of its life. Other ASTM tests called for testing at 150*C (302*F), which is way too HOT, and is also NOT representative of real world oil temperatures experienced by a running engine, where it spends 99% of its life. In addition to that, every oil I’ve ever tested for the onset of thermal breakdown, would already be at or beyond the threshold of thermal breakdown at 302*F.

An ideal oil sump temperature range in a running engine is between 215*F and 250*F, though oil temps are not entirely uniform throughout the engine (more on that below). This range is hot enough to quickly boil off normal condensation rather than letting it evaporate over time, which can allow it to dilute the oil. And this range is also low enough to provide sufficient cooling for internal components, all of which are directly oil cooled, while at the same time staying below the onset of thermal breakdown in nearly all motor oils.

So, the Official ASTM test procedures I reviewed for my application, were COMPLETELY WORTHLESS for finding out the truth when it comes to wear protection capability of motor oil at representative oil temperatures where an engine spends 99% of its life. Being a perfectionist, I was not willing to accept sub-par test procedures. So, I developed my own test procedure using the real world temperature of 230*F, which “IS” representative of where engines typically spend 99% of their life.

And that temperature also works extremely well with my test equipment, and produces accurate and repeatable results which are essential for meaningful comparisons between different motor oils. My test procedure produces the most realistic and useful data you will ever find anywhere. And that is why I have numerous endorsements of my Engineering test procedure, as well as validation back-ups, including race track data, flat tappet break-in data, and High Performance street data, that exactly match my Engineering test data. BOTTOM LINE: My test data WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from a motor oil in a running engine.

However, I do occasionally come across someone criticizing my test data because my Engineering testing does not use an Industry Standard test temperature. So, let me be perfectly clear to those critics who don’t grasp what I said above. Industry Standard test temperatures of 100*F or 302*F are COMPELTELY WORTHLESS, because they do not represent real world temperatures where engines spend 99% of their life. My Engineering test temperature DOES represent real world temperatures where engines spend 99% of their life. And I challenge anyone, anywhere, no matter who they are, to PROVE that my Engineering test temperature of 230*F, is not a better representation of the temperatures inside a normal running engine, than those worthless Industry test temperatures.

.
Motor oil is not the same temperature everywhere inside a running engine. Typical main bearing oil temps can be 55*-90*F higher than sump temps. However, main bearing oil under running conditions is not just a film of oil, it is a liquid wedge of flowing oil (that is why the cooling benefits of better flowing thinner oil are important here to avoid driving up bearing temps. See the section on viscosity selection immediately following my “Wear Protection Ranking List” below). Liquid oil is not compressible, therefore it completely prevents metal to metal contact (more on that below). My testing focuses on oil film strength, which is what is critical, and is the last defense against metal to metal contact. Even so, I also tested a dozen different oils at 275*F to see how their wear protection capability at that higher temp, compared to the 230*F that I normally test at.

.
The oils tested at 275*F consisted of different brands, different viscosities, some low zinc modern API certified oils, some high zinc Racing/Performance oils, some synthetic, some conventional, some semi-synthetic, some with low levels of detergent and some with high levels of detergent. As expected, the wear protection capability psi values dropped as the oils got hotter and thinner. But for most of the oils, the drop was not enormous. And the average psi drop for the whole group of oils, was only about 12% from their 230* values. What was also of interest here, was how the ranking of these dozen oils might change relative to each other, as they got hotter. The result was that there was some shuffling of the ranking order within the top 10 oils, but all of the top ten oils were still in the top 10.

.
It was also quite clear by looking at these results, that high zinc levels, high detergent levels, and heavy viscosities did NOT play any particular roll in how well a motor oil does or does not provide wear protection. The only thing that matters is the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the primary emphasis being on the additive package, since the additive package is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components.

.
In addition to the testing at 275*F, I also tested a couple of those oils at a much higher 325*F to see how their wear protection capability might change at that temp. It turned out that their load carrying capacity leveled off and stayed approximately the same between 275* and 325*, and their ranking relative to each other did not change. So, it is comforting to know that you don’t run into dangerously low wear protection if and when you end up with overheated oil at some point. But of course the oil will have already run into thermal breakdown and should be changed as soon as possible.

.
So, all this testing showed that the oil ranking positions did not change significantly even at higher temps. And that means that my “Wear Protection Ranking List” below, which was generated with oil temps at 230*F, is still representative of how the various oils compare to each other, even at the higher operating temperatures seen in certain locations of the engine.

.

METHODOLOGY

The details of the specific test equipment set-up I developed, as well as the details of the specific test procedure I developed, that provide the accuracy and repeatability that I demand, are Proprietary Intellectual Property. But, I can share the following:

The test methodology or test procedure I use at a representative operating oil temperature of 230*F, is a dynamic rubbing friction test under load, which generates a wear scar on a test specimen that is bathed in the oil being tested. This procedure, which is performed exactly the same for every motor oil tested, provides excellent repeatability, which is critical to validate the methodology. And as shown above, my test data EXACTLY matches real world severe over-heating experience, real world race track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance street experience. No matter what any critics may say, with my test data exactly matching real world experience, that absolutely PROVES and VALIDATES that my data is the real deal. You cannot get any better than that, so you will not find better motor oil comparison data anywhere. The test result is “pounds” of force being applied over the wear scar “area”, which is in square inches (the size of that “area” is of course is determined by the oil’s film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance capability). So, the result is 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. Multiple tests are performed on each oil, and the resulting values are averaged to arrive at the most accurate possible value for comparison. And the motor oils are ranked, based on the average psi value they generated.

.
The motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” I performed to generate my “Wear Protection Ranking List”, is worst case torture testing, using oil testing equipment that is for the record, NOT a “One Armed Bandit” tester and NOT a “4-Ball Wear Tester”. My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine ever could. So, since my oil testing compares various oils under worst case conditions, absolutely no further testing is required in a running engine. If oils rank higher in my “Wear Protection Ranking List” than the oil you currently use, those higher ranked oils will provide a HIGHER LEVEL OF WEAR PROTECTION than your current oil. It’s really that simple.

.
My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. And every oil I test is brought to its failure point, that’s how it works. The difference in the failure points, is what we compare. And in addition to that, my equipment’s calibration is checked and adjusted if required, each time the testing switches to a different oil. That keeps the final results accurate at all times.

.
You will NOT find this many oils tested on the exact same equipment, using the exact same procedure, using the exact same real world representative operating oil temperature, by the exact same operator, anywhere else. Therefore, this is the best apples to apples motor oil comparison you will ever find.

.
But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the complete difference in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and cannot be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes no sense. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at an earlier point. And that is why my test data psi values may appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines. Keep in mind, I’m comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and the procedure used is exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil stands on its own merit. And if oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing, then oil A will also offer twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running engine.

.
The “dynamic wear testing under load” I use, is intentionally designed to find the SPECIFIC LIMIT of each individual oil’s “Load carrying capability/film strength/shear resistance”, at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. Or in other words, to determine each oil’s “wear protection capability” psi value, which can be compared to any other oil tested on the same equipment. As mentioned above, the results that come out of my testing are NOT my opinion, and they are NOT my theory. They are the FACTS that come out of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the tests.

.
Performing “dynamic wear testing under load”, is the ONLY TYPE OF TESTING that will provide accurate data regarding an oil’s film strength. Dynamically testing motor oil under load, is the same concept as dynamically testing an engine under load on a dyno. That is the only way to truly find accurate performance data of a motor oil, or of an engine.

.
And obtaining accurate oil film strength data 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 $3.00 per quart or $30.00 per quart. So, oil film strength testing is 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.

.
But, testing motor oil in a running engine CANNOT determine the EXACT SPECIFIC wear protection LIMIT of an oil, which is necessary, in order to make an accurate comparison between various oils. So, attempting to test various motor oils for comparison in a running engine, provides no meaningful data, other than perhaps that a given oil did not cause a failure in that particular engine combo. If you were to test say a half a dozen different oils in your engine combo, and you had no problems with any of them, how can you tell how they rank against each other? It’s a proven fact that all oils do not provide the same wear protection capability. That means you have no way of knowing which of those 6 oils provides you with the highest level of protection. Therefore, motor oil testing in a running engine, is a waste of time, effort and money, when it comes to gathering accurate data for comparison between various oils. And that is precisely why I perform all my testing with motor oil test equipment, rather than in an engine.

.
And simply looking at an oil’s zinc level on its Lab Report is of no value at all, because some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils only provide poor wear protection. And you have no way to tell which is which by looking at the zinc level alone. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, and NOT just by how much zinc is present.

.
The old claim that you must have a high level of zinc for a high level of protection, is only a MYTH that has been BUSTED. And no one anywhere, can provide any real world test data proving that high zinc levels will always protect your engine. Because zinc simply does NOT work that way, no matter what you’ve read and heard a million times. More zinc simply takes longer to be depleted as it is sacrificed and used up while helping protect heavily loaded parts. Therefore, more zinc provides “longer” wear protection, NOT “more” wear protection. So, if someone tells you that you must have a high level of zinc for sufficient wear protection, no matter who they are, or no matter what Company they may represent, DO NOT believe it. Because they are proving that they DO NOT understand how zinc really works, and are only repeating the same old wives’ tale with absolutely NOTHING to back it up.

.
And ZDDP DOES NOT build up on parts like some sort of plating process. ZDDP simply DOES NOT work that way. ZDDP that is present in the oil, is activated by heat and pressure, which is precisely what the oil is subjected to during my oil testing procedure. My testing DOES NOT discount ZDDP levels either. ZDDP is part of the additive package, and the additive package is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components. You cannot test oil film strength without also automatically testing the ZDDP included in that oil at the same time. Since ZDDP is an integral part of an oil’s additive package, and the additive package is primarily what creates an oil’s film strength, the ZDDP that is present, will be working as well as its chemical composition allows, during any film strength testing.

.
I’ve also “wear tested” a number of oils, both synthetic and conventional, when they were used with 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, even though those oils had been subjected to heat and stress over a significant length of time, 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, as well as absolute proof and validation that testing new oils is representative of what we can expect from those oils as they accumulate time and miles on them.
.
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 that was designed by their Chemical Engineers. I tested doing that very thing in several different oils, and found that adding zinc additives in every case, ruined the oils by SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING their wear protection capability. That of course, is just the opposite of what people “think” they will be getting. So, those major oil Companies were absolutely correct about not adding anything to their oil. And people who insist on choosing an oil based on zinc level alone, are very likely shooting themselves in the foot, and ending up with far LESS wear protection than they THINK they have. It just depends on which particular oil they select. A number of popular traditional high zinc oils have proven to provide poor wear protection when actually put to the test.

.
In order for people to choose an oil that truly provides the best possible wear protection for their engine, they need to select an oil based on its “wear protection capability”, NOT its “zinc level”. Modern API certified oils have reduced zinc/phosphorus levels, and that now absent quantity of zinc/phosphorus has been replaced with alternate anti-wear components that are equal to, or better than zinc/phosphorus. In fact, many of the modern low zinc oils provide BETTER WEAR PROTECTION than many of the traditional high zinc oils, which you will see in the ranking list below.

.
Oil “wear protection” capability that was tested here, and an oil’s “friction reduction” capability, are two entirely different things. While the test data here 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 potential differences in HP or miles per gallon.
.
It should also be noted that I do NOT get paid by any Oil Company, nor by any Motor Oil Retailer, nor do I sell anything myself. So, I have no vested interest in what oil people choose to run. Therefore, all the data here is totally independent, unbiased, and is reported exactly how the test results came out. I have no agenda here, other than simply sharing the FACTS with like-minded gear heads.

.
The ppm (parts per million) quantities of zinc, phosphorus, moly and in some cases titanium, shown in the ranking list below, are taken directly from the Lab Reports that came back from the Professional Lab “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada. Some oils have MORE ZINC than phosphorus, while other oils have MORE PHOSPHORUS than zinc. It just depends on the particular oil’s formulation. Either way, the numbers below are correct and are NOT typos.

.
The “Load Carrying Capability/Film Strength/Shear Resistance” ranking list is from all the real world motor oil “Wear Testing” I’ve performed so far on new oils. 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, low zinc and high zinc oils with other aftermarket additives added in, and Break-In oils.

.
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.

.
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 does not mean you have switch to a different oil, and it also does not mean you were using 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.

.
For the test results in the Wear Protection Ranking List, the HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the wear protection. And this applies to ALL engines, including ANY High Performance flat tappet engine. An easy way to use this ranking list, is to find an oil you are familiar with, then look at the oils ranked higher, which provide better wear protection, and look at oils ranked lower, which provide less wear protection.

.
Until I started performing Tribology Research, and setup my motor oil “Wear Protection Capability Ranking List”, there was no good way to know which oils provided good wear protection, and which oils didn’t. Because it’s been proven over and over by a number of sources that zinc levels alone, cannot indicate which oils are good and which oils are not. The whole high zinc mindset is only Folklore that CANNOT BE PROVEN, and it DOES NOT stand up to any form of testing. So previously, all we could do was guess, or use trial and error to determine which oil was good enough, and which oil was not. And even then, we had no way of knowing how various “good enough” oils compared among themselves.

.
You cannot advance your knowledge into the future by clinging to the incorrect thinking of the past. This is the 21st Century, and we no longer have to guess or use trial and error to decide on which oil to use. Now, we have documented wear test data available. So the future is here, and all we have to do is look at the Ranking List, to choose an oil that provides a wear protection capability level we are comfortable with for any given build.

.
The “Wear Protection” test data here DIRECTLY APPLIES to flat tappet lobe/lifter interfaces (no matter how wicked the engine), pushrod tip/rocker arm interfaces, non-roller tip rocker arm/valve stem tip interfaces, distributor gear/cam gear interfaces, mechanical fuel pump pushrod tip/cam eccentric interfaces, and all highly loaded engine interfaces.

.
******************

.
Here are some key points that you will see in the following test results:

* Synthetic oils rank between number 1 and number 233.

* Conventional oils (with no aftermarket additives) rank between number 5 and number 232.

* Since the ranking of synthetic oils and conventional oils completely overlap, there is no clear distinction between their wear protection capabilities, which means that conventional oils are still far better than most people think.

* I’ve also tested a number of synthetic, semi-synthetic and conventional gasoline engine oils for the onset of thermal breakdown. Individually, the synthetic oils that were tested, varied between 300* F and 210* F. But, on average, the onset of thermal breakdown for those synthetic oils was 276*F. Individually, the conventional oils varied between 280* F and 255* F, and the average for those conventional oils was 268*F. So, as you can see looking at the averages for each type of oil, there was only an 8* difference, meaning that overall, there is little to no difference in their abilities to withstand high temps. So, while some individual synthetic oils do well when subjected to high heat, overall they do not live up to the outrageous claims of some Internet articles. At the end of the day, the conventional oils tested here, were about the same regarding their ability to withstand heat, making them a lot better than many people think. And the average value for the onset of thermal breakdown for all these gasoline engine oils combined = 273* F. For more specific test data on motor oil thermal breakdown, see SECTION 3 – MOTOR OIL THERMAL BREAKDOWN TEST DATA.

* Also when comparing same viscosity synthetic oils vs conventional oils in a running engine, using synthetic oils will sometimes result in mechanically noisier engines. This is NOT a problem and has nothing to do with their wear protection capabilities, nor how much zinc is present in each oil. It is simply a characteristic difference that will sometimes show up between the two oil types.

* High zinc oils rank between number 12 and number 232 which VERY CLEARLY shows that simply having a high level of zinc is no guarantee of superior wear protection. If a high level of zinc was a guarantee of superior wear protection, then all high zinc oils would rank at the top of the list. But, that simply is NOT the case. And many wiped flat tappet lobes COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, including during break-in, if people had not blindly believed that all high zinc oils provide all the wear protection they need. Because nothing could be further from the truth.

* Low zinc oils rank between number 1 and number 231.

* Since the low zinc oils and the high zinc oils completely overlap, you can see that zinc does not play the primary role in determining an oil’s wear protection capability. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the primary emphasis on the additive package, which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components. And modern alternate extreme pressure components are equal to, or better than zinc. Tech Author David Vizard calls the use of zinc as the primary anti-wear component, outdated technology. And that is precisely what my motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” found as well.

* I’ve also tested ZDDPlus zinc additive in 3 low zinc oils, and I’ve tested Edelbrock Zinc additive in 3 different low zinc oils. In each case, the recommended amount of additive was used. And in all 6 cases, these high zinc additives ruined the oils and made them WORSE than they were before the extra zinc was added, by SIGNIFICANTLY reducing their wear protection capabilities. These additives did the opposite of what was promised. That is not surprising, because most major Oil Companies say to never add anything to their oils, because doing that will ruin the oil by upsetting the carefully balanced additive package that their Chemical Engineers designed into them. And that is precisely what was seen when using these high zinc additives.

* However, I have come across an exception to the warning about not adding anything to motor oil. I tested adding “Oil Extreme Concentrate” to ordinary 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN, conventional oil in the yellow bottle. This additive is calcium petroleum sulfontate based, rather than high zinc based. And after adding the recommended amount (for street applications) of that additive, it IMPROVED the wear protection capability of that oil by a whopping 30%.

I also added the recommended amount of “Oil Extreme Concentrate” (for racing applications) to 10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil, conventional oil. And it IMPROVED the wear protection capability of that oil by a mind blowing 69%.

I also added the recommended amount of “Oil Extreme Concentrate” (for racing applications) to 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, semi-synthetic oil. And it IMPROVED the wear protection capability of that oil by a breath taking 56%.

I also added the recommended amount of “Oil Extreme Concentrate” (for racing applications) to 10W30 Comp Cams Muscle Car & Street Rod Oil, synthetic blend oil. And it IMPROVED the wear protection capability of that oil by a significant 24%.

I also added the recommended amount of “Oil Extreme Concentrate” (for racing applications) to 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (extreme performance racing oil) synthetic oil. And it IMPROVED the wear protection capability of that oil by 9%.

This Oil Extreme Concentrate ACTUALLY MAKES THE OIL BETTER in terms of wear protection, and works as advertised in that regard. Obviously, this additive being calcium petroleum sulfontate based, does not ruin the oil like high zinc based additives do.

.
There were however, limits to its improvement potential. When the testing was complete, the conclusion was that oils with “around” 80,000 psi capability or less, should experience a SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT from using the “Oil Extreme Concentrate Additive”, in terms of improved wear protection capability. But, oils with a higher capability psi, did not see a benefit.

.
Prolong Engine Treatment is another motor oil additive that testing showed significantly improves an oil’s wear protection capability. I tested it in a full synthetic oil, and two conventional oils, which as a group, had a wide range for their original ranking positions. The additive improved the wear protection capability of all 3 oils, on average by about 46%. But, keep in mind that the data here only provides information on wear protection capability, and does NOT provide any information as to how compatible this product’s chlorine may be with a given oil’s additive package. Chlorine and additive package incompatibility has a possible risk of creating damaging bearing corrosion problems. There have been legal issues with this product that you can Google for yourself. Contact Prolong’s maker for more information on compatibility, to find out if it is safe to use in your application. The test data on Prolong is included in my Ranking List for informational purposes only, because of requests I have received about testing this product. But, I do not endorse nor recommend its use. It is always best to simply choose a highly ranked oil in the first place, and avoid using any aftermarket additives.

* Traditional Heavy Duty Diesel oils formulated for big trucks and heavy equipment, rank overall between number 45 and 201. But, if you omit the two highest ranked Heavy Duty Diesel oils which are SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CAPABLE than most of the other Heavy Duty Diesel oils, the rest only rank between 99 and 201. Other than those two particular highest ranked Heavy Duty Diesel oils, the poor wear protection performance of most Heavy Duty Diesel oils, makes it very clear that in general, they are a poor choice for use in High Performance gas engines. Heavy Duty Diesel oils should be used only in Heavy Duty Diesel engines, where they are intended to be used. Heavy Duty Diesel engines are designed MUCH differently than gasoline engines, so both types of oils are formulated for different requirements.

.
* I’ve also tested synthetic and conventional Diesel oils for the onset of thermal breakdown. Individually, the synthetic oils that were tested, varied between 285* F and 255* F. But, on average, the onset of thermal breakdown for those synthetic Diesel oils was 269*F. Individually, the conventional Diesel oils varied between 265* F and 250* F, and the average for those conventional oils was 254*F. The average value for the onset of thermal breakdown for all the tested Diesel oils combined = 261* F. Comparing the overall averages, you can see that these Diesel oils fell victim to heat about 12* F earlier than the gasoline engine oils that were tested. So, that is another reason why using Diesel oils in High Performance gas engines, is a poor choice. For more specific test data on motor oil thermal breakdown, see SECTION 3 – MOTOR OIL THERMAL BREAKDOWN TEST DATA.

* Break-In oils rank between number 145 and number 232. But, if you omit the highest ranked Break-In oil which is far more capable than the other Break-In oils, the rest only rank between 191 and 232. So, if you are looking for outstanding wear protection during break-in, you will be extremely disappointed with most of these oils. Because they are not formulated to prevent wear, they are formulated to allow the parts to quickly “wear in”, which is totally unnecessary. This is because newly manufactured parts will have a surface that “microscopically” looks like peaks and valleys. The loading on those tiny little peaks, will be EXTREMELY high, because the load is not spread out across enough surface area to support the load. And no motor oil made by man can stop those peaks from being very quickly worn down, thus leaving a smoother surface that will distribute the load across a surface area large enough to support that load.

That makes it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to stop parts from wearing-in on their own, no matter what oil you run. And we’ve seen that for many years with factory filled synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1 (which is one of the top ranked oils regarding wear protection capability) in countless thousands of brand new vehicles, that always break-in their components and seal their rings just fine. That means so-called break-in oils are completely unnecessary. And the poor wear protection provided by most break-in oils, can put a flat tappet engine in serious danger of wiping lobes. No matter what anyone tells you, for roller lifter engines or for flat tappet engines (no matter how wicked they may be), it is best to use a highly ranked oil, no matter how much zinc is in it, for BOTH break-in and after break-in. In fact, the SAME highly ranked oil can be used for both purposes, meaning you can choose a single highly ranked oil and stay with it from first fire, on.

.

VISCOSITY vs WEAR PROTECTION CAPABILITY COMPARISON:

20 wt oils rank between number 2 and 220

30 wt oils rank between number 1 and 233

40 wt oils rank between number 6 and 219

50 wt oils rank between number 39 and 228

60 wt oil, the only one tested, ranked number 101

70 wt oil, the only one tested, ranked number 177
.

So, as you can see, this is absolute PROOF that viscosity does NOT determine an oil’s wear protection capability, even though many people mistakenly believe it does. As mentioned above, an oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the primary emphasis on the additive package, which contains the critical extreme pressure anti-wear components. And the additive package has nothing to do with viscosity.

NOTE: HTHS (High-Temperature/High-Shear) test data only provides information on how capable various motor oils are at maintaining their viscosity under high heat and high stress conditions. But, HTHS viscosity data DOES NOT provide any useful information at all about an oil’s wear protection capability. Because a motor oil’s viscosity DOES NOT determine its wear protection capability. See article 17 titled, “Do HTHS (High-Temperature/High-Shear) values provide any useful information about wear protection capability?”, for more details.

.
*****

I generally recommend that people choose a highly ranked motor oil to begin with, since highly ranked oils don’t need any additional help. And to use that oil just as it comes, right out of the bottle, with NO aftermarket additives at all. However, there is also data included below from testing a several different aftermarket motor oil additives, for informational purposes only, just to show how these additives actually work compared to their claims. But, I do NOT endorse them nor recommend their use.

*****

* FOR THE RECORD, I am NOT connected in any way to the Motor Oil or Aftermarket Additive Industry. I have absolutely no interest in what products people choose to use. So, I DO NOT promote any particular brand. I only share the results that come out of my Engineering tests, good or bad.
.

The Wear Protection reference categories are:

* Over 150,000 psi = SPECTACULAR wear protection

* 135,000 psi to 150,000 psi = AMAZING wear protection

* 120,000 psi to 135,000 psi = FANTASTIC wear protection

* 105,000 to 120,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection

* 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection

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

* 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODERATE wear protection

* 50,000 to 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE LOW wear protection

* Below 50,000 psi = CAUTION – EXTREMELY LOW wear protection

The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.

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

Keep in mind that my Engineering motor oil torture testing is designed to reach each oil’s load carrying capability limit, which is then measured, documented, and used for comparison against other motor oils. So, in order reach the load carrying capability limit of each oil, my test procedure and equipment are designed to load oils much more heavily than actual running engines are designed to do. Therefore, an actual running engine may operate acceptably with a low performing oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, as long that engine does not load its oil beyond the load carrying capability of the oil being used.

My Wear Protection Ranking List provides information that allows people to choose the level of wear protection capability they desire for their particular engine, which cannot be found anywhere else. Since you have to buy oil for your engine anyway, it is in your engine’s best interest, to buy a highly ranked, high performance motor oil. The better the oil’s performance, the safer your engine.

*****

.
IT’S WORTH REPEATING THAT SOME KEY POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND ABOUT THIS TESTING ARE:

.
The psi reference values above, ONLY APPLY TO MY TEST DATA, not to actual engine component loading. Here’s why:
The motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” I perform is WORST CASE torture testing. My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to generate severe loading, that will quickly cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. The test loading is severe enough, that the wear scar size that forms, based on an oil’s load carrying capability (the wear scar is what is measured), has stabilized at its final size by the conclusion of a 30 second load test. Procedure development testing showed that more time than that did not change the wear scar size. Every oil I test is brought to its failure point, that’s how it works. The difference in the failure points, is what we compare. My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine could ever generate.

.
But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the COMPLETE DIFFERENCE in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and therefore CANNOT be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes absolutely no sense at all. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at a much earlier point than it would in an engine. And that is why my test data psi values appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines.

.
In addition to that, my equipment’s calibration is checked and adjusted if required, each time the testing switches to a different oil. That keeps the final results accurate at all times. And keep in mind, I’m comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and the procedure used is exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil stands on its own merit, and produces the best wear protection capability that its chemical composition allows. If oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing, then oil A will also provide twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running engine.

.
All the oils were tested at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. A colder test temperature of less than 212*F would have been too cold, and would have been below desirable normal operating temperature, as well as being too low to even quickly boil off natural condensation, which if not quickly eliminated can dilute the oil. A hotter test temperature of above 250*F, would have been hotter than desirable normal operating temperature, and would have been so high, that many motor oils would already have reached the threshold of thermal breakdown. Remember that critical internal engine components are directly “OIL COOLED”, and only indirectly water cooled. So, the oil needs to stay cool enough to actually help cool those components. Therefore, 230*F is an ideal test temperature to arrive at the most meaningful values for comparison. I’ve also tested oils at 275*F, as well as 325*F, and found that there was no significant change in the ranking order, which further confirms that the test temperature of 230*F is absolutely valid, even though operating temperatures vary in certain locations of an engine.

.
All the oils tested here were brand new oils. But, I’ve also “wear tested” a number of those oils, both synthetic and conventional, when they were used with 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, even though those oils had been subjected to heat and stress over a significant length of time, 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, as well as absolute proof and validation that testing new oils is representative of what we can expect from those oils as they accumulate time and miles on them.

.
I’m a Mechanical Engineer. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. And a Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical components under load.

.
And again, most important of all, is at the end of the day, my test data EXACTLY MATCHES real world race track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance street experience, which PROVES once and for all, that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track, during flat tappet or roller break-in, or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oil. It also bears repeating, that all the data here was determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. It is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. It is the Science that tells us what is going on with motor oils. And no one can argue with Physics and Chemistry. So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world.

.
.

===============================================

.

===============================================

.

The “WEAR PROTECTION RANKING LIST” itself, begins here:

1. 5W30 Quaker State “Full Synthetic” (abbreviated QSFS), dexos 1 Gen 2, ILSAC GF-6A, API SP = 152,674 psi
And that psi value sets a WHOPPING NEW ALL-TIME RECORD for motor oils that I have put through my Engineering Torture Test on motor oil. It was tested in Spring 2021.
This new 5W30 Quaker State “Full Synthetic” motor oil replaces the previous 5W30 Quaker State “Ultimate Durability” (abbreviated QSUD) synthetic.
zinc = 905
phos = 764
moly = 176
The psi value of this new oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the SPECTACULAR Wear Protection Category. However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, most hotter and thinner oils typically experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. But, even at that elevated temperature, this oil produced an extremely impressive 148,133 psi, which was only a small 3% drop in capability. And that value put this much hotter and thinner oil in the AMAZING Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was 290*F.

This new oil was purchased at Walmart. And its truly amazing performance is further proof that Walmart is selling legitimate motor oil, even though their prices are extremely low compared to typical Auto Parts Stores.

Many of us who have been devoted users of the previous Quaker State “Ultimate Durability” motor oil, were concerned that Quaker State’s Corporate bean counters might get their hands on this new Quaker State “Full Synthetic” oil, and cut costs that would ruin the oil. Fortunately, as it turned out, that did not happen. And in fact, now this latest new 5W30 Quaker State “Full Synthetic” motor oil, is BY FAR, the BEST PERFORMING motor oil that I have ever tested. This is absolute proof that Quaker State REALLY knows how to formulate motor oil.

This new “Full Synthetic” motor oil has set the bar so high, that it is the oil I will be using in my own vehicles from stock to High Performance, from now on. And it is the motor oil that I will recommend to my Blog readers for most water cooled, gasoline powered engines, that can use 5W30. This is especially THE “go to” motor oil for traditional flat tappet engines to provide the utmost in protection against wiped cam lobes.

Never say never, but it is hard to imagine another motor oil ever producing numbers this amazing.

Here is a back to back comparison of the new 5W30 Quaker State “Full Synthetic” and the old 5W30 Quaker State “Ultimate Durability”.

NOTE: The Higher the psi value, the Better the wear protection capability. And the Higher the onset of thermal breakdown value, the Higher the oil temperature can reach before the oil begins to deteriorate due to heat.

QSFS at 230*F = 152,674 psi
QSFS at 275*F = 148,133 psi
QSFS onset of thermal breakdown = 290*F

*****
QSUD at 230*F = 133,125 psi
QSUD at 275*F = 115,764 psi
QSUD onset of thermal breakdown = 275*F

The only possible concern about this amazing new 5W30 Quaker State Full Synthetic motor oil, was that it might be “too good” for use in wet clutch motorcycles. But, motorcycle Owner feedback in July 2021, proved that this amazing new motor oil works just fine in wet clutch motorcycles, meaning there was no clutch slipping at all. Of course that applies to wet clutch motorcycles with clutches that are in good condition.
.
.
2. 5W30 Amsoil Signature Series 100% Synthetic, has no certification labels, but claims it can be used in applications that require GM dexos1-Gen2, ILSAC GF-6A, API SP = 141,851 psi
This oil was tested in Spring 2021.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The psi value of this new oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the AMAZING Wear Protection Category. However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, most hotter and thinner oils typically experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. At that elevated temperature, this oil produced a very impressive 132,317 psi, which was a 6.7% drop in capability. And that value put this much hotter and thinner oil in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was an extremely impressive 305*F.
.
.
3. Prolong Engine Treatment added to 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN synthetic = 136,658 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the Prolong Engine Treatment added to it, has a wear protection capability of 92,569 psi. With the recommended amount of Prolong added per qt, its wear protection capability “WENT UP 48%”.

WARNING!!! Prolong Engine Treatment contains chlorine. As a result, there have been legal issues with this product because of chlorine caused engine damage. And Prolong also settled with the FTC over unsubstantiated claims they made about their product’s capability. The psi data here provides information on wear protection capability ONLY! But, it does NOT provide any information on the long term effects of this product’s chlorine.
Chlorine’s long term corrosive damage, outweighs any short term friction reduction benefit. Chlorine is so corrosive that the motor oil industry stopped using chlorine compounds as part of factory additive packages, decades ago. In lab testing, Prolong showed to contain a startling high 30% chlorine. Using an aftermarket additive containing chlorine, is extremely risky, and is playing Russian Roulette with your engine. Prolong provides no benefit to stock engines, or other engines that are designed and built properly, that is worth risking serious long term engine damage.
Aftermarket motor oil additives ruin an oil’s carefully balanced factory additive package, making the oil WORSE OVERALL than it was to begin with, no matter what it may or may not do for the wear protection capability. The test data on Prolong is included in my Ranking List for informational purposes only, because of requests I have received about testing this product. But, I do NOT endorse it, and would never recommend its use.
It is always best to simply choose a highly ranked motor oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List in the first place, which will NOT need any help. Then use it just as it comes, right out of the bottle with NO aftermarket additives, and your engine will be well protected.
.
.
4. 5W30 Tribodyn, synthetic = 135,434 psi
This oil has no API certifications, but the bottle claims that the oil meets the API SN specs. The bottle also says do NOT use this as break-in oil, and also that this oil is NOT recommended for wet clutch applications. It also cautions to shake the bottle well before use. NOTE: I always thoroughly shake every bottle of oil before performing my Engineering Torture Test on it. This oil is made in the U.S.A, and was tested summer 2020.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the AMAZING Wear Protection Category. However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, most hotter and thinner oils typically experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. However, this is one of those rare motor oils that produced an increase in its wear protection capability at higher temperature. It produced 143,801 psi at 275*F, which was up 6% from its 230*F value. And even at that elevated temperature, this much hotter and thinner oil was of course still in the AMAZING Wear Protection Category. I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was 280*F.
At the time of this writing, I had tested 240 motor oils. And this oil produced the highest wear protection psi values I have ever seen from a motor oil just as it comes, right out of the bottle. Very impressive for an oil that few people have even heard of. However, it fell wildly short of the wear protection capability that this maker claimed it produced in a European University wear protection capability test. In that test, they claimed 5W30 Tribodyn street oil produced 54 times, yes 54 times as much psi as 0W40 Amsoil Signature Series oil. Of course a claim like that is totally absurd, and insults our intelligence. As you can see just below, Amsoil Signature Series oils were the highest ranked oils of all the oils I had tested, until I did this test on 5W30 Tribodyn synthetic oil. And the Tribodyn actually produced only slightly better psi numbers than Amsoil. Buyer beware of blatant false advertising.
.
.
5. 0W30 Ravenol VSW, USVO (Ultra Strong Viscosity Oil), synthetic = 135,395 psi
This low friction motor oil has an ACEA C3 certification, and is for passenger car gasoline or diesel engines with or without turbocharging or direct injection. This very impressive motor oil is made in Germany, and was tested in early 2021.
The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the AMAZING Wear Protection Category. And I also went on to test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. This oil had only a small 4% drop in capability. But, even at that elevated temperature, it produced an impressive 129,754 psi, which put this much hotter and thinner oil in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.
I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was a somewhat disappointing 265*F. NOTE: Motor oils do NOT stop working when they exceed the onset of thermal breakdown point. They just begin to slowly deteriorate.
.
.
6. 10W50 Amsoil Dirt Motorcycle Oil, API SL, JASO MA, synthetic = 134,968 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
7. 0W20 Amsoil Signature Series, synthetic = 134,840 psi
The bottle does not have an API symbol, but it claims the oil can be used in applications that require API SN, GM dexos 1, ACEA A1/B1. It also claims to provide 75% better wear protection than required by the API SN specification. And it claims 50% more cleaning power than Amsoil OE motor oil.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2017. And it produced the highest psi value ever seen in my testing, from “ANY” motor oil just as it comes right out of the bottle, with no aftermarket additives. Very impressive. My test results confirm that Amsoil’s claim of this oil providing exceptional wear protection, is true. And this is further proof that you do NOT need heavy thick viscosity to provide such impressive wear protection.

As it stands in Fall 2017, Amsoil Signature Series synthetic motor oils, hold the top two positions in my Wear Protection Ranking List for oils just as they come, right out of the bottle, with no aftermarket additives. Motor oils have to be EXTREMELY GOOD to perform that well in my Engineering torture test on motor oil. Amsoil knows what they are doing, and they have set the bar to a new very high level.
.
.
8. 10W30 Mercury 4-Stroke Marine Engine Oil, synthetic blend, NMMA FC-W Catalyst Compatible = 134,669 psi
zinc = 868
phos = 760
moly = 51
This oil was tested Spring 2021.
.
.
9. 5W30 Amsoil Signature Series, synthetic = 134,352 psi
NOTE: This motor oil has been replaced by a newer version. See above for the new version’s details.
The bottle does not have an API symbol, but it claims the oil can be used in applications that require API SN, GM dexos 1, ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1. It also claims to provide 75% better wear protection than required by the API SN specification (though it does say that claim is in reference to their 0W20 Amsoil Signature Series synthetic). And it claims 50% more cleaning power than Amsoil OE motor oil.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2017.
The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category. And it produced the highest psi value ever seen in my testing, from any 5W30 motor oil just as it comes right out of the bottle, with no aftermarket additives. Very impressive. My test results confirm that Amsoil’s claim of this oil providing exceptional wear protection, is true. This oil could well be “THE MOTOR OIL OF CHOICE” for most High HP engines, including Bad Boy traditional American flat tappet pushrod engines, or for virtually any engine where 5W30 is used.

And I also went on to test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. This oil had only a modest 7% drop in capability. But, even at that elevated temperature, it produced an impressive 124,573 psi, which still kept this much hotter and thinner oil in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

In addition, I also tested this oil at 130*F, which is an oil temperature in the middle of the range of the Sequence IVA Wear Test (ASTM D6891) = 123,882 psi, which still had it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category, even though this value is about an 8% drop from the normal 230*F test temperature’s psi value. NOTE: An engine warming up, will transition right past this temperature as it heats up to its normal operating temperature.

So, here are the three temperatures I tested this oil at, put together for easy comparison:
130*F = 123,882 psi
230*F = 134,352 psi
275*F = 124,573 psi
As you can see, there is no meaningful difference between these three psi values, and as mentioned above, all three psi values are in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category. So, none of these temperatures had any negative affect on the oil’s wear protection capability.

I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was 295*F.

As it stands in Fall 2017, Amsoil Signature Series synthetic motor oils, hold the top two positions in my Wear Protection Ranking List for oils just as they come, right out of the bottle, with no aftermarket additives. Motor oils have to be EXTREMELY GOOD to perform that well in my Engineering torture test on motor oil. Amsoil knows what they are doing, and they have set the bar to a new very high level.

Here’s a June 2018 Testimonial regarding Amsoil 5W30 Signature Series oil, sent by a Blog reader from Greece, which proved ONCE AGAIN that my motor oil Engineering Test Data “EXACTLY MATCHES” real world racing experience, as I have always said. It also proves ONCE AGAIN, that all my critics are DEAD WRONG, and have no idea what they are talking about, regarding motor oil and its performance capabilities. If you want the FACTS about motor oil, you need to read this Blog.

For reference below, Amsoil 10W30 Dominator Racing oil, produced a far lower 97,118psi, in my testing. The higher the psi value an oil can produce, the better the wear protection. Here is what he said in his Testimonial:

****

Hi (again) 540 Rat,

I’ve seen several times, as a Rally spectator ‘n’ fan, a Skoda Fabia S2000 participating in Greek Rally Championship, sponsored by Amsoil, and after reading your blog, the question “which specific Amsoil do they use, in a N/A 1,996 cc = 121c.in. racing motor running up to 9500r.p.m. and approx. 300hp…” emerged. So, I took myself to the service park with the intention to ask team engineers about that. In fact, I didn’t need to do so, because I saw them in an oil change using Amsoil 5W30 Signature Series oil, instead of Amsoil Dominator Racing oil. I found that this was kind-a-weird, so I decided to ask them “why so”.

Chief engineer told me that every time they need to rebuild the engine, they measure accurately, all geometric parameters such as clearances, ring’s width, cams heights etc. in order to replace if something was out of specs, and after 3800 racing kms (2000+miles), they decided to use Amsoil 5W30 Signature Series oil, because all mentioned components’ wear was close to non-measurable from one to the next rebuild procedure.

In fact, that’s -in my opinion- another proof that your data are “online” with real world’s facts. Of course, a high pressure oil pump and FIA approved oil cooler are provided. But apart from these, it’s still a highly stressed engine, revving most of its lifespan between 6,000 and 9,500 rpm, “feeding” via gearbox all 4 wheels.

The question remains: why not use Amsoil Dominator Racing oil…
(To mention rally team’s name, in order to avoid “suspicious minds” from “bad thoughts”: “Cabilis Performance”)

Keep doing great things,
E.C.
Greece

My final comment about this Testimonial: Amsoil Signature Series oil has performed far better than Amsoil Dominator Racing oil, in my Engineering tests. So, the obvious choice is their Signature Series oil, if you want the absolute best wear protection. Perhaps this Race Team has been reading my Blog.
.
.
10. 10W30 Amsoil Marine Engine Oil, synthetic, NMMA FC-W Catalyst Compatible, API SM = 133,756 psi
zinc = 837
phos = 748
moly = <1
This oil was tested Spring 2021.
.
.
11. 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, dexos 1 – Gen 2, API SN “Plus”, synthetic (green bottle) = 133,125 psi
NOTE: THIS MOTOR OIL WAS DISCONTINUED, AND REPLACED BY QUAKER STATE “FULL SYNTHETIC” IN EARLY 2021. SEE ABOVE FOR THE NEW OIL’S RANKING POSITION.
This oil was tested again in late 2019 for two reasons:
1. It became available with the API SN “Plus” certification, so there was an interest in seeing if there were any changes in its performance.
2. This oil was purchased at Walmart. And that was significant because it was so shockingly cheap at Walmart, compared to mainstream Auto Parts Stores, that there were concerns that Walmart might be selling counterfeit oil. Here’s why:
This oil was purchased at Walmart in late 2019, where the price was about $6.00 per quart bottle, and about $20.00 per 5 quart jug. At the same time, a few miles away, this oil’s price at Pep Boys Auto Parts Store was about $9.00 per quart, and about $35.00 per 5 quart jug. So, there was a need to find out if this oil being sold so cheap at Walmart was legitimate or not. Sure, you could say that Walmart makes such large purchases that it gets a break on price. But then, you could say the same thing about Pep Boys Auto Parts chain stores. But, the proof was in the pudding as they say. And as you can see by the psi value and ranking position above, this is the best performing 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, that I’ve ever tested. So, Walmart gets a clean bill of health. They are selling legitimate QSUD, and there is nothing to be concerned about. Now, we would have a hard time justifying buying this oil anywhere besides Walmart.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.
However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. And this oil did have a 13% drop in capability. However, even at that reduced value down to 115,764 psi, this much hotter and thinner oil was in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.
I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was 275*F.
.
.
12. 5W30 Renewable Lubricants, Super High Performance Passenger Vehicle, Bio-SynXtra, motor oil = 130,436 psi
This patented biobased motor oil uses agricultural vegetable oil base stock, and is biodegradable. It claims to provide optimum performance in newer High Output Turbocharged and Supercharged “GASOLINE” engines. It also claims to have been formulated with the latest additive package components added to that base stock. It has no Motor Oil Industry certifications, but claims the formula passed the tests required for API SN. And it claims superior wear protection and high temperature stability, both of which proved to be true in my Engineering tests. In addition, it also claims to have a very high Viscosity Index value, which helps against fuel dilution concerns. The higher the Viscosity Index value, the less the oil’s viscosity is reduced as it heats up.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Summer 2018.

The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

I also went on to test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. This oil had only an extremely small 0.7% drop in capability. Even at that elevated temperature, it produced 129,486 psi, which still kept this much hotter oil in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil for its onset of thermal breakdown point, which was 275*F.

This was the first biobased motor oil I ever tested. And its performance was EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE. These results probably surprise a lot of people, since this oil wasn’t even made from petroleum base stock. So it appears, there could be a very bright future for biobased motor oil, if they are formulated well.

And the test data produced by this biobased oil, further backs up what I have said about a motor oil’s “base stock” NOT being all that critical, it is the “additive package” that IS critical.
.
.
13. Prolong Engine Treatment added to 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 130,366 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the Prolong Engine Treatment added to it, has a wear protection capability of 95,392 psi. With the recommended amount of Prolong added per qt, its wear protection capability “WENT UP 37%”.

WARNING!!! Prolong Engine Treatment contains chlorine. As a result, there have been legal issues with this product because of chlorine caused engine damage. And Prolong also settled with the FTC over unsubstantiated claims they made about their product’s capability. The psi data here provides information on wear protection capability ONLY! But, it does NOT provide any information on the long term effects of this product’s chlorine.

Chlorine’s long term corrosive damage, outweighs any short term friction reduction benefit. Chlorine is so corrosive that the motor oil industry stopped using chlorine compounds as part off factory additive packages, decades ago. In lab testing, Prolong showed to contain a startling high 30% chlorine. Using an aftermarket additive containing chlorine, is extremely risky, and is playing Russian Roulette with your engine. Prolong provides no benefit to stock engines, or other engines that are designed and built properly, that is worth risking serious long term engine damage.

Aftermarket motor oil additives ruin and oil’s carefully balanced factory additive package, making the oil WORSE OVERALL than it was to begin with, no matter what it may or may not do for the wear protection capability. The test data on Prolong is included in my Ranking List for informational purposes only, because of requests I have received about testing this product. But, I do NOT endorse it, and would never recommend its use.

It is always best to simply choose a highly ranked motor oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List in the first place, which will NOT need any help. Then use it just as it comes, right out of the bottle with NO aftermarket additives, and your engine will be well protected.
.
.
14. 10W30 Quicksilver 4-Stroke Marine Engine Oil, synthetic blend, NMMA FC-W Catalyst Compatible = 129,260 psi
This a product of Mercury Marine.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2021.
.
.
15. 5W30 Valvoline Full Synthetic Extended Protection, GM dexos1-Gen2, ILSAC GF-6A, API SP = 127,227 psi
It claims to have an innovative additive booster which provides the ultimate protection against engine wear.
This oil was tested in Summer 2021.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The psi value of this oil came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, which put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category. However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, most hotter and thinner oils typically experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. At that elevated temperature, this oil produced 124,223 psi, which was a 2.4% drop in capability. And at that value, this much hotter and thinner oil was still in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was 285*F.
.
.
16. 0W40 Mobil 1 “FS” European Car Formula, ACEA A3/B3, A3/B4, API SN, synthetic = 127,221 psi
This new oil replaces the older version called, 0W40 Mobil 1, European Formula, API SN, synthetic. See below for the older version’s ranking position.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This new “FS” version was tested in Summer 2016.
However, a 40wt hot viscosity rated motor oil is too thick to be ideal for most engines. It is best to select the thinnest motor oil viscosity that will still provide acceptable “hot” oil pressure. And you do NOT need to select the “highest rated” motor oil, just as it comes right out of the bottle, from this Wear Protection Ranking List. There are many highly ranked oils here, that will provide your engine with excellent wear protection. So, you have many oils to choose from.

I also went on to test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. This oil did have a 16% drop in capability. But, even at that elevated temperature, it produced an impressive 106,876 psi, which put this much hotter and thinner oil in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was 280F.
.
.
17. 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum Full Synthetic, GM dexos1-Gen2, ILSAC GF-6A, API SP, made from natural gas, NOT crude oil = 125,755 psi
This oil was tested in Spring 2021.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The psi value of this new oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category. However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, most hotter and thinner oils typically experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. At that elevated temperature, this oil produced 111,542 psi, which was an 11% drop in capability. And that value put this much hotter and thinner oil in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was 275*F.
.
.
18. 5W30 Mobil 1 Advanced Full Synthetic, GM dexos1-Gen2, ILSAC GF-6A, API SP = 125,279 psi
This oil was tested in Spring 2021.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The psi value of this new oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category. However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, most hotter and thinner oils typically experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. At that elevated temperature, this oil produced an impressive 123,546 psi, which was an 1.4 % drop in capability. And that kept this much hotter and thinner oil in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was 275*F.
.
.
19. 5W30 Renewable Lubricants, HD Super High Performance, Bio-SynXtra motor oil = 125,250 psi
This biobased motor oil uses agricultural vegetable oil base stock. It has no Motor Oil Industry certifications, but claims to be formulated to meet the requirements for Diesel engines equipped with after treatment devices that require low ash. It also claims to be formulated for High Performance Turbocharged and Supercharged “DIESEL AND GASOLINE” engines that require API SN/CF, CF-4, CG-4, CH-4, CI-4, CI-4 Plus, CJ-4 and ACEA E2-96, E5-02 and E7-02.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested at the very end of 2018.

The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

I also went on to test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. This oil had only an extremely small 0.3% drop in capability. Even at that elevated temperature, it produced 124,901 psi, which still kept this much hotter oil in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil for its onset of thermal breakdown point, which was a very disappointing 245*F.
.
.
20. 5W30 Quaker State High Mileage Full Synthetic, ILSAC GF-6A, API SP = 125,083 psi
This oil was tested in Summer 2021.
zinc = 905
phos = 751
moly = 174
The psi value of this oil came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, which put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.
.
.
21. 0W20 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN, synthetic (originally gold, now green bottle) = 124,393 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested in Spring 2016. The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, which put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. This oil did have a 14.7% drop in capability. But, even at that elevated temperature, it produced an impressive 106,163 psi, put this much hotter and thinner oil in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.
.
.
22. 5W30 Valvoline Full Synthetic High Mileage with MaxLife Technology, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved (silver bottle) = 123,470 psi
Valvoline had a chart on their Website showing that this is their best oil for fuel economy and Horsepower. They also said this oil provided more anti-wear film strength than 5W30 Mobil 1, which is what I also found in my testing.
High Mileage oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils include “Seal Swell” chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested in Spring 2017.
The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

However, I also went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. And this oil did have a significant 27% drop in capability. At that reduced value down to 89,862 psi, this much hotter and thinner oil dropped down to the top of the GOOD Wear Protection Category range. You can avoid such a drop in capability by keeping the oil at a more reasonable cooler temperature.
I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was 285*F.
.
.
23. 5W30 Ravenol VMP, USVO, API SN, ACEA C3, synthetic = 122,938 psi
This oil is made in Germany. And is for gas and Diesel passenger cars with and without turbocharger, or direct injection.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022. The psi value of this oil, came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F.
However, I also tested this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil typically experiences a drop in Wear Protection Capability. And this oil had a 16% drop in capability, with 102,954 psi.
I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was 290*F.
.
.
24. 5W30 Pentosin Pento Super Performance III, for gas and diesel engines, API S”M”, ACEA C3, synthetic, made in Germany = 122,711 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2016. For more information on this oil, see Tech Article 30.
.
.
25. 5W20 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic (originally gold, now green bottle) = 121,396 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2015. The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. And this oil did have a significant 23% drop in capability. However, even at that reduced value down to 92,893 psi, this much hotter and thinner oil was in the OUTSTANDING Wear Protection Category.
.
.
26. 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN, GM dexos 1 Gen 2, synthetic (green bottle) = 120,588 psi
NOTE: This oil has been replaced by a newer version. See above for its latest performance.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Summer 2019. This version was updated to carry the GM dexos 1 “Gen 2” certification. The previous version did NOT have the “Gen 2” certification. NOTE: This particular bottle of oil did NOT have the API SN “Plus” certification. This oil will be tested again at a later date, when the API SN “Plus” certification has been added. The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil typically experiences a drop in Wear Protection Capability. But, this oil actually had a 4% “increase” in capability. At that elevated temperature, it produced an extremely impressive 125,493 psi, which further improved its position in the FANTASTC Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was 270*F.
.
.
27. 5W30 MPT THIRTY-K synthetic oil = 120,562 psi
This oil has no API symbol, but claims the following:
* Is recommended for API S”M”, CF, ACEA A3/B3/B4.
* Provides the best protection available for gasoline and Diesel engines.
* Provides the lowest coefficient of friction available.
* Provides 30,000 mile (THIRTY-K) oil change intervals with well maintained vehicles, or 15,000 mile oil change intervals with vehicles subjected to severe operating conditions.
* Sticker on the bottle says to “SHAKE WELL”, which I always do with every oil I test. But, that begs the question, if there is so much concern about this oil’s additive package components settling out in the bottle, that they actually put a separate sticker on the bottle about it, how can you be sure that settled out additive components in an engine that has been sitting for a length of time, with those components stuck on the bottom of the oil pan, will be sufficiently picked up again to work as intended? The maker also claims the following component quantities:
zinc = 1150 ppm
phos = 1605 ppm
moly = 1106 ppm
calcium = 2650 ppm
If those component levels are correct, this oil should not be used in late model vehicles equipped with cats, because levels that high can damage the cats. But, with the impressive psi value produced by this oil, it would be an excellent choice for Classic vehicles, older Hotrod vehicles, off-road vehicles, and racing vehicles.

This oil was tested Spring 2018. The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. This oil experienced a drop of only about 3% in wear protection capability. And at that elevated temperature, it produced 117,234 psi, which put this much hotter and thinner oil in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil for the onset of thermal breakdown, which was 270*F.

It was interesting to see that a little known Oil Company was capable of formulating such impressive motor oil performance. This oil actually performs head to head with the Big Boy Oil Companies. I seldom see that from little known Oil Companies.
.
.
28. 5W20 Valvoline Modern Engine Oil, for engines 2012 and newer, API SN, synthetic = 120,531 psi
This new line of motor oil came out at the beginning of 2018, and claims to fight carbon build-up on piston crowns, combustion chambers, valves and Turbochargers, in GDI (Gas Direct Injection) and other newer engines. This oil’s impressive wear protection psi value, certainly makes it an excellent choice, in that regard. But, in spite of their claims, do not expect it to keep those engine components any cleaner than other quality motor oils can.

Here’s why: Even if this oil has more or better cleaning agents as their Marketing claims would imply to the causal reader, any cleaning agents would not be able to do any cleaning if those engine components are not exposed to significant amounts of the oil. And any engine in good condition, would not be exposing those components to significant amounts of oil. If it did, the engine would be blowing blue smoke out the exhaust pipes, and be consuming oil between oil changes. Therefore, some might say that those implied claims of cleaner engine components are misleading at best, or outright false at worst, as it relates to most newer engines.

Nearly all cleaning of those components in engines in good condition, normally has to come from the cleaning agents in the “fuel” being used, NOT from the oil being used. And that is HUGE problem for “Direct Injection only” engines, since fuel vapor does not wash over the intake ports and intake valves, like it does with Port Injection engines.

“Direct Injection only” engines spray fuel directly into the combustion chambers under extremely high 2,200 psi or higher pressure. But, Port Injection engines spray fuel into the intake ports at much lower 40 to 60 psi pressure. In “Direct Injection only” engines, increased contaminants get past the piston rings and into the crankcase oil. That allows the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system to draw in oil rich vapors into the intake air, where those vapors and any oil droplets that may be present, though not enough to blow blue smoke out the exhaust, combine with hot exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) gases, to end up forming baked on hard deposits on intake ports, intake valves, piston crowns, combustion chambers, and Turbos in GDI engines.

API SN “Plus” and/or GM dexos1-“Gen 2” certified motor oils are formulated to help minimize the amount of oil rich vapors and oil droplets that are drawn into the intake air, that would be present to form those baked on deposits, and/or potentially contribute to Low-Speed Pre-Ignition (LSPI) in small Turbocharged Gasoline Direct Injection (TGDI) engines.

The problem is, this motor oil did NOT have either certification at the time it was tested here. So, it would be a real stretch to expect this oil to live up to its claims of keeping engine components cleaner than other quality motor oils on the market. The only thing that will truly keep those components clean, is the newest Dual Injection systems, that combine both Port Injection “AND” Direct Injection. That way you have the best of both worlds.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2018. The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category.

However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. And this oil experienced about a 12% drop in capability. But, even at that elevated temperature, it produced 105,567 psi, which put this much hotter and thinner oil in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil for the onset of thermal breakdown, which was 260*F.
.
.
29. 0W30 Gulf Competition, High Performance Racing Engine Oil, ester-based synthetic = 119,789 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil claims reduced frictional properties. There were no ACEA nor API certifications on the bottle’s label, but the Gulf paperwork literature that was sent to me along with the oil, said the following: “No formal specifications can be claimed, but this oil contains performance additives designed to achieve ACEA A3/B4 and API SL/CF. While this oil is excellent for motorsport use, it is not recommended for use in road cars if the car or its engine is still under the original manufacturer’s warranty”.

This oil was purchased in “Sweden” in December 2016.

This oil was tested January 2017. The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.

However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. But, this oil had only a small 6% drop in capability. And even at that elevated temperature, it produced an impressive 112,618 psi, which still kept this much hotter and thinner oil in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.

This oil’s onset of thermal breakdown = 265*F.
.
.
30. 10W30 Sierra Marine Engine Oil, synthetic, NMMA FC-W Certified = 119,318 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2021.
.
.
31. 5W50 Amsoil Signature Series, synthetic, API SP = 118,543 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
32. 5W30 Mobil 1, Advanced Full Synthetic, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved = 117,799 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This was the latest current version of this oil when tested at the end of 2015. This oil is used by a number of Auto Makers worldwide as factory fill oil in their High Performance cars. The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.

However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. And this oil did have a disappointing 36% drop in capability. At that reduced value down to 75,861 psi, this much hotter and thinner oil dropped down to the GOOD Wear Protection Category. You can avoid such a drop in capability by keeping the oil at a more reasonable cooler temperature.
.
.
33. Prolong Engine Treatment added to 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN conventional (yellow bottle) = 117,028 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the Prolong Engine Treatment added to it, has a wear protection capability of 76,989 psi. With the recommended amount of Prolong added per qt, its wear protection capability “WENT UP 52%”.

WARNING!!! Prolong Engine Treatment contains chlorine. As a result, there have been legal issues with this product because of chlorine caused engine damage. And Prolong also settled with the FTC over unsubstantiated claims they made about their product’s capability. The psi data here provides information on wear protection capability ONLY! But, it does NOT provide any information on the long term effects of this product’s chlorine.

Chlorine’s long term corrosive damage, outweighs any short term friction reduction benefit. Chlorine is so corrosive that the motor oil industry stopped using chlorine compounds as part off factory additive packages, decades ago. In lab testing, Prolong showed to contain a startling high 30% chlorine. Using an aftermarket additive containing chlorine, is extremely risky, and is playing Russian Roulette with your engine. Prolong provides no benefit to stock engines, or other engines that are designed and built properly, that is worth risking serious long term engine damage.

Aftermarket motor oil additives ruin and oil’s carefully balanced factory additive package, making the oil WORSE OVERALL than it was to begin with, no matter what it may or may not do for the wear protection capability. The test data on Prolong is included in my Ranking List for informational purposes only, because of requests I have received about testing this product. But, I do NOT endorse it, and would never recommend its use.

It is always best to simply choose a highly ranked motor oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List in the first place, which will NOT need any help. Then use it just as it comes, right out of the bottle with NO aftermarket additives, and your engine will be well protected.
.
.
34. 15W50 Amsoil Metric Motorcycle Oil, synthetic, API SM, JASO MA/MA2 = 116,187 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
35. 10W30 Mobil 1, Advanced Full Synthetic, API SN = 115,635 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested at the end of 2015.
.
.
36. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 115,612 psi
zinc = 806 ppm
phosphorus = 812 ppm
moly = 66 ppm
calcium = 3,011 ppm
TBN = 10.3
This oil is no longer available and has been replaced by newer API “SN” versions a couple of times. See below for the current “SN” version’s ranking position.
.
.
37. 20W50 MPT Thirty-K, synthetic = 115,604 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
38. 5W30 Valvoline Advanced Full Synthetic, GM dexos1-Gen2, ILSAC GF-6A, API SP = 115,255 psi
This oil was tested in Spring 2021.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The psi value of this new oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category. However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, most hotter and thinner oils typically experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. But, this was one of the few motor oils that actually produce a better psi value at that elevated temperature. This oil produced 119,289 psi, which was up by 3.5%. And that kept this much hotter and thinner oil in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was an impressive 295*F.
.
.
39. 5W20 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage, API SN, dexos 1 approved, synthetic blend (red bottle) = 114,125 psi
High Mileage oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils include “Seal Swell” chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2016.
.
.
40. 5W30 Mobil 1 ESP Formula (Emission System Protection), for diesel and gas engines, ACEA C2, C3, API SN, synthetic = 113,836 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2016. For more information on this oil, see Tech Article 30.
.
.
41. 20W50 Harley-Davidson, Screamin’ Eagle SYN3 Full Synthetic Motorcycle Lubricant = 113,725 psi
For engine, chain case and transmission.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
42. 20W50 Amsoil Z-Rod, API SL, synthetic = 113,606 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
43. 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic (originally gold, now green bottle) = 113,377 psi, NOTE: This oil has been replaced by a newer version – see above for that newer version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This was the latest current version of this oil when tested at the end of 2015. The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.

However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. But, this oil only had a very small 3.7% drop in capability. And even at that elevated temperature, it produced an extremely impressive 109,211 psi, which still kept this much hotter and thinner oil in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.
.
.
44. 5W30 Pennzoil Euro “AV” European Formula, for diesel and gas engines, ACEA C3, API SN, synthetic = 112,664 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2016. For more information on this oil, see Tech Article 30.
.
.
45. 10W30 Yamaha, Yamalube 4M, Marine Performance Four Stroke Motor Oil, conventional, NMMA FC-W Certified = 112,656 psi
zinc = 845
phos = 723
moly = 220
This oil was tested Spring 2021.
.
.
46. 5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic = 112,464 psi
This Motorcycle Road Racing oil is from France and comes in liter bottles (slightly more than a quart). At the time this oil was tested in spring 2014, it cost $24.25 per bottle. And with the shipping cost added to that, the final cost was about $33.00 per bottle (shipping was all inside the U.S.), making it THE most expensive motor oil I’ve ever tested.
zinc = 1724 ppm
phosphorus = 1547 ppm
moly = 481 ppm
calcium = 3141 ppm
TBN = 7.4
This oil contains sufficient amounts of the components required (detergent, acid neutralizer, etc) for normal change intervals in street driven vehicles. But, it has way too much zinc/phos for use in cat equipped vehicles. However, it is well suited for Race Cars, Street Hotrods and Classic cars.
.
.
47. 5W30 Mag 1, FMX, European Formula, API S”M”, ACEA C3-08, synthetic, for gas and diesel cars and light trucks = 111,622 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2016.

However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. And this oil did experience a 17.1% drop in capability. But, even at that elevated temperature, it produced 92,508 psi, which still put this much hotter and thinner oil in the OUTSTANDING Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was at 280*F.
.
.
48. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 111,570 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of 115,612 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability “WENT DOWN 3.5%”.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD.
moly = TBD
calcium = TBD
TBN = TBD
.
.
49. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic = 111,061psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of only 71,206 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability “WENT UP A BREATH TAKING 56%”.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD.
moly = TBD
calcium = TBD
TBN = TBD
.
.
50. 5W30 LE (Lubrication Engineers) Monolec Tetra-Syn, API SN, GF-5, dexos 1, synthetic = 110,883 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2018.
.
.
51. 5W30 Oil Extreme Motor Oil, API SM synthetic (per the Oil Company, even though synthetic wording is not shown on the label) = 110,286 psi
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, fully supports their claim regarding wear protection. So, their hype about that, turned out to be absolutely true. And since this oil beat nearly 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.
zinc = 765 ppm
phosphorus = 624 ppm
moly = 52 ppm
calcium = 7,652 ppm
TBN = 23.2
.
.
52. 5W50 Mobil 1 FSX2, API SN, synthetic = 109,619 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
53. 5W40 Mag 1, FMX, European Formula, API SN, ACEA A3/B4, synthetic, for gas and diesel cars and light trucks = 109,147 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2016.
.
.
54. 20W50 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil, (black bottle) synthetic = 108,374 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
55. 5W30 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage, API SN, synthetic blend (red bottle) = 108,045 psi
High Mileage oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils include “Seal Swell” chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus =TBD
moly = TBD
This is an earlier version that is no longer available. It has been replaced by a new formula version that now has GM dexos 1 approval. See below for the new version’s ranking position.
.
.
56. 5W30 Amsoil Max-Duty Signature Series Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CK-4/SN = 108,031 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested in early 2022.
.
.
57. 5W30 Castrol Edge Professional “LL03”, for diesel engines, ACEA C3, gold bottle, synthetic = 107,067 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2016. For more information on this oil, see Tech Article 30.
.
.
58. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
phosphorus = 3489 ppm
moly = 1764 ppm
calcium = 2,929 ppm
TBN = 9.0
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.
.
.
59. 5W30 Pennzoil “Ultra” Platinum, API SP, ILSAC GF-6A, synthetic made from natural gas = 106,453 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2021. And its onset of thermal breakdown is an impressive 295*F.
This is a strange motor oil for several reasons. I have NEVER seen it in any store, so it had to be ordered on-line. Apparently stores do not want to stock it, or else Pennzoil does not want to supply it and promote it in stores. It is also the only API SP, ILSAC GF-6A motor oil I can recall that does NOT have the GM dexos1 Gen 2 certification.

And even though this “Ultra” version would be considered Pennzoil’s “Top of the Line” motor oil, its wear protection capability psi value is a very surprising 15% LOWER/WORSE than the standard 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum API SP, ILSAC GF-6A, GM dexos1 Gen 2, synthetic made from natural gas motor oil, with an onset of thermal breakdown of 275*F, that was tested here in Spring 2021. So, it is not clear why anyone would want to buy this “Ultra” version instead of the standard version, unless they absolutely had to have that extra 20*F before thermal breakdown begins.
.
.
60. CFS 0W30 NT Millers Nanodrive Racing Oil, API SM synthetic = 105,907 psi
This oil is from England, comes in liter bottles (slightly more than a quart), and it uses a nanotechnology formulation. At the time this oil was tested in fall 2013, it cost $22.45 per bottle. And with the shipping cost added to that, the final cost was about $28.00 per bottle (shipping was all inside the U.S.), making it one of the most expensive oils I’ve ever tested.
zinc = TBD, but the maker claims it has approximately 1100 ppm ZDDP.
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
calcium = TBD
TBN = TBD
.
.
61. 5W30 Mobil 1, Advanced Full Synthetic, API SN = 105,875 psi
zinc = 801 ppm
phosphorus = 842 ppm
moly = 112 ppm
calcium = 799 ppm
TBN = 7.5
This is an earlier version that is no longer available. It has been replaced by a new formula version that now has GM dexos 1 approval. See above for the new version’s ranking position.
.
.
62. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil conventional = 105,758 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of only 62,538 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability “WENT UP A MIND BLOWING 69%”.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD
moly = TBD
calcium = TBD
TBN = TBD
.
.
63. 10W60 Porsche Classic Motor Oil, synthetic = 105,710 psi
This oil was Engineered in Weissach, and made in Germany especially for air-cooled Porsche flat six engines 3.0L and larger.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
molt = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2020. The psi value above, produced by this oil, came from testing it at the normal test temperature of 230*F. But, I also tested this oil at the much higher test temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. And this oil had a very disappointing and significant 21% drop in capability, resulting in only 83,166 psi at 275*F. An air-cooled engine cannot control its oil temperature very well at all, which is why high temperature performance of a motor oil intended for air-cooled engines is EXTREMELY important. Unfortunately, the poor high temperature performance of this oil, makes it a less than ideal choice for air-cooled engines. Clearly the Chemical Engineering of this oil has fallen short of its intended goal.

A better thick oil choice for an air-cooled engine, would be 20W50 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil, which produced 97,677 psi at 230*F, and it produced 94,850 psi at 275*F. Both the 20W50 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil, AND the 10W60 Porsche Classic Motor Oil showed their onset of thermal breakdown points were at 285*F.
.
.
64. 5W30 Ravenol “FO”, API SN, synthetic = 105,606 psi
This oil was made in Germany, and it was tested late 2019.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
molt = TBD
.
.
65. 5W30 NAPA Full Synthetic, API SN, dexos 1 approved, silver bottle = 105,319 psi
The bottle says this oil was developed by Valvoline.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Summer 2017.
.
.
66. 0W30 Amsoil Signature Series 25,000 miles, API SN synthetic = 105,008 psi
zinc = 824 ppm
phosphorus = 960 ppm
moly = 161 ppm
calcium = 3,354 ppm
TBN = 11.4
This is an older version of this oil that was replaced by a newer formula in 2017. The newer formula claims 75% better wear protection.
.
.
67. 5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic = 104,487 psi
The bottle says it is formulated specifically for high output GM LS engines, and that no ZDDP or additives required. This is by far, the best performing Joe Gibbs oil I’ve ever tested. It is at the very top of the OUTSTANDING wear protection category, and fell just short of the INCREDIBLE wear protection category.
zinc = 1610 ppm
phosphorus = 1496 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
calcium = 3515 ppm
TBN = 8.8
This oil contains sufficient amounts of the components required (detergent, acid neutralizer, etc) for normal change intervals in street driven vehicles. But, it has way too much zinc/phos for use in cat equipped vehicles. However, it is well suited for Race Cars, Street Hotrods and Classic cars, but only if they are using a roller cam and lifters.
CAUTION: Motor Oil Industry testing has found that more than 1,400 ppm of zinc/phosphorus (ZDDP) INCREASES wear. So, this motor oil is NOT a good choice for any flat tappet cam engine.
.
.
68. 15W50 Aeroshell W, Piston Aircraft engine oil, semi-synthetic = 104,332 psi
zinc = 2 ppm
phos = 1286 ppm
moly = < 1 ppm
TBN = 2.6, NOTE: The Total Base Number value represents acid neutralizer, used to prevent corrosion. Most Automotive gasoline engine oils start with TBN around 8 or 9. So, with such an abnormally low TBN value, this motor oil is NOT suitable for street operated Automotive or Motorcycle engines.
See more Lab Test data at the beginning of “Section 4 – Motor Oil component quantity Lab Test results”.
This oil was tested at the end of 2017.
The psi value shown just above, is from the normal test temperature of 230*F, which put this oil near the upper end of the OUTSTANDING wear protection category. However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. And this is the first oil I have tested that actually had an “increase” in capability at 275*F = 106,300 psi, which put it in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category at this much higher temperature. This is also the “first” aircraft engine oil I have tested. And this viscosity would generally be used in “air cooled” aircraft engines.
I also tested this oil for the onset of thermal breakdown, which was 285*F.
.
.
69. 15W50 Amsoil Dominator Racing Oil, synthetic = 103,950 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
70. 10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
phosphorus = 1518 ppm
moly = 784 ppm
calcium = 1,607 ppm
TBN = 4.4
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use. Since this testing was performed, Valvoline has discontinued this oil.
.
.
71. 10W40 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage, API SN, synthetic blend (red bottle) = 103,840 psi
High Mileage oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils include “Seal Swell” chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested at the end of 2015. The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the OUTSTANDING Wear Protection Category.

However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. And this oil did have a significant 25% drop in capability. At that reduced value down to 77,817 psi, this much hotter and thinner oil dropped to the GOOD Wear Protection Category.
.
.
72. A 50/50 mix of 0W40 Mobil 1 European Car Formula (but this bottle did NOT have the latest “FS” designation on the label), API SN, ACEA A3/B3, A3/B4 synthetic and 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum pure plus technology made from natural gas, API SN, dexos 1, ACEA A1/B1, A5/B5 synthetic = 103,735 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
These oils were sent to me by a Blog reader who requested this Witches Brew test, which you could call a 2.5W35 when combined. This concoction was tested Spring 2017.
My previous combination testing involved aftermarket additives being added to a single motor oil. But, this is the first time I tested two “oils” mixed together. And this is an example which shows that API SN certified oils are compatible, and that mixing them together, does NOT harm their wear protection capability.
.
.
73. 5W40 Quaker State Euro Full Synthetic, API SP, ACEA A3/B3, A3/B4, for gasoline or diesel engines = 103,686 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2022.

For those who are interested in using this somewhat thicker motor oil in Traditional Old School American flat tappet, pushrod, gas engines, consider my following recommendations:

Stock or lightly modified versions of those engines are best protected by motor oils that produce AT LEAST 100,000 psi or HIGHER film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance, found here on my Wear Protection Ranking List.

Racing and High Performance street versions of those engines are best protected by motor oils that produce AT LEAST 120,000 psi or HIGHER film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance, found here on my Wear Protection Ranking List.

NOTE: THE HIGHER THE PSI VALUE, THE BETTER THE WEAR PROTECTION. SO HERE, MORE PSI IS ALWAYS BETTER.
.
.
74. 5W50 Motorcraft, API SN synthetic = 103,517 psi
zinc = 606 ppm
phosphorus = 742 ppm
moly = 28 ppm
calcium = 1,710 ppm
TBN = 6.7
.
.
75. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phosphorus = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
calcium = 2,707 ppm
TBN = 7.6
.
.
76. 15W60 Amsoil V-Twin Motorcycle Oil, API SM, JASO MA, synthetic = 103,046 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
77. 5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil synthetic, API CI-4 PLUS, CF, SL, ACEA A3/B3, E2, E3, E5, E7 = 102,642 psi.
This oil is Engineered for Diesel engines not equipped with Diesel particulate filters (DPF). Amsoil says this oil delivers better wear protection than other popular Diesel oils. And in this case, their hype is absolutely true. They also say it effectively reduces fuel consumption, with its advanced fuel efficient formula. This oil costs $11.15 per quart in the 2013 Amsoil Factory Direct Retail Catalog, which is 10% more than Amsoil’s 5W40 Premium Synthetic Diesel Oil. So, in this case, you pay only 10% more for the Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil, but you get a whopping 33% more wear protection than you get with the Amsoil’s 5W40 Premium Synthetic Diesel Oil. Money very well spent, if you run a Diesel oil intended for engines not equipped with Diesel particulate filters. This 5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil is one of the very best Diesel oils I have tested.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
78. 5W30 Pennzoil High Mileage Vehicle, API SN, conventional = 102,402 psi
High Mileage oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils include “Seal Swell” chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.
zinc = TBD
phos =TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
79. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 102,059 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of 105,875 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability “WENT DOWN 3.6%”.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD.
moly = TBD
calcium = TBD
TBN = TBD
.
.
80. 10W40 VP Racing (a Division VP Racing Fuels), High ZDDP Break-In Engine Oil, conventional = 101,844 psi
zinc = TBD
phos =TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested early 2023. And it claims to provide the ultimate protection for cams and valve train during Break-In.

However, so-called Break-In oils ARE NEVER NEEDED BY BRAND NEW ENGINES. For example, Auto Makers have been producing vehicles for well over 100 years, and they have NEVER used so-called Break-In oils in any of their engines, no matter how High Performance some of their engines may have been. And their engines have always been just fine. I have NEVER used Break-In oil in any of the engines I have built myself, and they have always been just fine. I don’t know anyone personally who has ever used Break-In oil, and their engines have always been just fine.

The reason Brand new engines do NOT need Break-In oil, is because those brand new engine components are forced to immediately seat-in with their mating components, in order to carry the load being applied to them. So, absolutely NO special Break-In Procedure is ever needed. It’s that simple. And any competent Degreed Mechanical Engineer understands that.

Major Oil Companies do NOT offer Break-In oils, because they know what they are doing. However, small US Hotrod and Racing, High Zinc Oil Companies do offer Break-In oil, because they do NOT know what they are doing. Those Companies are NOT staffed by qualified Degreed Engineers. So, their personnel have been BRAINWASHED by unqualified and incompetent people on Automotive Internet Forums and elsewhere, to falsely believe that new engines need Break-In oil. But the FACT is, that whole notion is only a MYTH.

But, for those who are gullible and have been brainwashed into believing that they must use a Break-In oil in a brand new engine, and might be considering using this somewhat thicker motor oil in Traditional Old School American flat tappet, pushrod, gas engines, consider my following recommendations:

Stock or lightly modified versions of flat tappet engines are best protected by motor oils that produce AT LEAST 100,000 psi or HIGHER film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance, found here on my Wear Protection Ranking List.

Racing and High Performance street versions of flat engines are best protected by motor oils that produce AT LEAST 120,000 psi or HIGHER film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance, found here on my Wear Protection Ranking List.

NOTE: THE HIGHER THE PSI VALUE, THE BETTER THE WEAR PROTECTION. SO HERE, MORE PSI IS “ALWAYS” BETTER.

So, on top of the FACT that Break-In oils are NOT NEEDED IN THE FIRST PLACE, this VP Racing Break-In oil’s performance is NOT good enough to use in Traditional American flat tappet engines. Using this oil in a flat tappet engine, may well result in WIPED cam lobes.

That of course means that their claim of this oil providing the ultimate protection for cams and valve train, is yet ANOTHER case of false advertising and a fraudulent claim. Buyer Beware!!!
.
.
81. 0W20 Toyota Motor Oil, API SN, synthetic = 101,460 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2016.
.
.
82. 0W20 Mazda GF-5 with Moly, API SN, GF-5, synthetic = 101,285 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2017. It is made by Idemitsu Lubricants.
.
.
83. 5W40 Joe Gibbs DT40, synthetic = 101,265 psi
This oil claims to be formulated specifically for modern Sports Car engines, yet it has no API certifications at all, and claims to have a ZDDP anti-wear package, which would indicate that it does not have low enough zinc/phos levels to be safely used in modern cat equipped vehicles.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested at the end of 2015.
.
.
84. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phosphorus = 1112 ppm
moly = 162 ppm
calcium = 2,664 ppm
TBN = 7.4
.
.
85. 5W30 Valvoline Modern Engine Oil, for engines 2012 and newer, API SN, synthetic = 101,069 psi
This new line of motor oil came out at the beginning of 2018, and claims to fight carbon build-up on piston crowns, combustion chambers, valves and Turbochargers, in GDI (Gas Direct Injection) and other newer engines. This oil’s impressive wear protection psi value, certainly makes it an excellent choice, in that regard. But, in spite of their claims, do not expect it to keep those engine components any cleaner than other quality motor oils can.

Here’s why: Even if this oil has more or better cleaning agents as their Marketing claims would imply to the causal reader, any cleaning agents would not be able to do any cleaning if those engine components are not exposed to significant amounts of the oil. And any engine in good condition, would not be exposing those components to significant amounts of oil. If it did, the engine would be blowing blue smoke out the exhaust pipes, and be consuming oil between oil changes. Therefore, some might say that those implied claims of cleaner engine components are misleading at best, or outright false at worst, as it relates to most newer engines.

Nearly all cleaning of those components in engines in good condition, normally has to come from the cleaning agents in the “fuel” being used, NOT from the oil being used. And that is HUGE problem for “Direct Injection only” engines, since fuel vapor does not wash over the intake ports and intake valves, like it does with Port Injection engines.

“Direct Injection only” engines spray fuel directly into the combustion chambers under extremely high 2,200 psi or higher pressure. But, Port Injection engines spray fuel into the intake ports at much lower 40 to 60 psi pressure. In “Direct Injection only” engines, increased contaminants get past the piston rings and into the crankcase oil. That allows the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system to draw in oil rich vapors into the intake air, where those vapors and any oil droplets that may be present, though not enough to blow blue smoke out the exhaust, combine with hot exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) gases, to end up forming baked on hard deposits on intake ports, intake valves, piston crowns, combustion chambers, and Turbos in GDI engines.

API SN “Plus” and/or GM dexos1-“Gen 2” certified motor oils are formulated to help minimize the amount of oil rich vapors and oil droplets that are drawn into the intake air, that would be present to form those baked on deposits, and/or potentially contribute to Low-Speed Pre-Ignition (LSPI) in small Turbocharged Gasoline Direct Injection (TGDI) engines.

The problem is, this motor oil did NOT have either certification at the time it was tested here. So, it would be a real stretch to expect this oil to live up to its claims of keeping engine components cleaner than other quality motor oils on the market. The only thing that will truly keep those components clean, is the newest Dual Injection systems, that combine both Port Injection “AND” Direct Injection. That way you have the best of both worlds.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2018. The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the OUTSTANDING Wear Protection Category.

However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. This oil experienced only about a 3.5% drop in capability. At that elevated temperature, it produced 97,445 psi, which kept this much hotter and thinner oil in the OUTSTANDING Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil for the onset of thermal breakdown, which was 260*F.
.
.
86. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN conventional (yellow bottle) = 100,252 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of only 76,989 psi. But, with 1.5 OZ of concentrate added per qt, which is the bottle’s instruction for street driven vehicles, its wear protection capability “WENT UP A WHOPPING 30%”.
zinc = 970 ppm
phosphorus = 749 ppm, this value is 91 ppm lower than the basic oil because the concentrate has less phosphorus in it, which diluted the overall ppm count of the mixture.
moly = 285 ppm
calcium = 4,443 ppm
TBN = 18.8
.
.
87. 0W20 Mobil 1 Extended Performance, API SN, dexos 1 approved, synthetic = 100,229 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested in Spring 2016.
.
.
88. 5W30 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional (blue bottle) = 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
.
.
89. 5W20 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic (gold bottle) = 99,983 psi
zinc = 1042 ppm
phos = 857 ppm
moly = 100 ppm
titanium = 49 ppm
This is an earlier version that is no longer available. It has been replaced by 5W20 Castrol Edge Extended Performance (gold bottle). See below for its ranking position.
.
.
90. 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
91. 20W50 Harley-Davidson, H-D 360, Genuine Motorcycle Oil, conventional = 99,761 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
92. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN conventional (yellow bottle) = 99,529 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of only 76,989 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability “WENT UP 29%”.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
93. 5W30 Pennzoil “Ultra” Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved = 99,039 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a dark gray bottle with a blue vertical stripe on the label.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the OUTSTANDING Wear Protection Category.

However, I went on to also test this oil late in 2015, at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. But, this oil had only an extremely small 2.7% drop in capability, the smallest drop I have seen. And at that reduced value down to 96,363 psi, this much hotter and thinner oil was still in the OUTSTANDING Wear Protection Category.
.
.
94. 10W30 ZMax Racing Oil, synthetic, for Racing engines only = 98,813 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2019.
.
.
95. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 5W30 Oil Extreme Motor Oil, API SM synthetic = 98,396 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of 110,286 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability “WENT DOWN 11%”.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.

96. 10W30 LE (Lubrication Engineers) Monolec Ultra Diesel oil, API CK-4, CJ-4, CI-4, CH-4, CI-4Plus, conventional = 97,878 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2018. And this is the best performing CK-4 Diesel oil I have tested to date.
.
.
97. 20W50 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil, conventional = 97,677 psi
This oil claims high zinc/phos.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
It was tested Summer 2019. The psi value above, produced by this oil, came from testing it at the normal operating water-cooled engine test temperature of 230*F, which put it in the OUTSTANDING Wear Protection Category. But, this oil is way too thick for most any water-cooled engine. However, it is ideal for air cooled engines, which cannot control their oil temperatures well. And it is popular with air-cooled Harley Davidson Motorcycle Owners. So, for their benefit, I also tested this oil at the much higher test temperature of 275*F.

At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. But, this oil only had a very small 3% drop in capability. And even at that elevated temperature, it produced 94,850 psi, which still kept this much hotter and thinner oil in the OUTSTANDING Wear Protection Category.

I also tested this oil to find out its onset of thermal breakdown, which was an impressive 285*F.
.
.
98. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN conventional, yellow bottle = 97,651 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of only 76,989 psi. But, with 3.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, its wear protection capability “WENT UP 27%”.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
99. 10W30 John Deere Turf-Gard, 4-Cycle gas engine motor oil, conventional, ILSAC GF-5, API SN = 97,625 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2021.
.
.
100. 10W40 Pennzoil High Mileage Vehicle, API SN, conventional = 97,419 psi
High Mileage oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils include “Seal Swell” chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested at the end of 2015.
.
.
101. 10W30 Amsoil Dominator Racing Oil synthetic = 97,118 psi
zinc = 1613 ppm
phos = 1394 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
.
.
102. 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum Euro “L”, made from natural gas, for diesel and gas engines, ACEA C3, GM dexos “2” approved, API SN, synthetic = 97,051 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2016. For more information on this oil, see Tech Article 30.
.
.
103. 10W30 Motorex, 4T Top Speed, synthetic, 4-Stroke Motorcycle Oil, JASO MA2 (acceptable for wet clutch applications), API SN = 96,771 psi
This oil is made in Switzerland.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested early 2022.
.
.
104. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN conventional, yellow bottle = 96,739 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of only 76,989 psi. But, with 4.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, its wear protection capability “WENT UP 26%”.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
105. 20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 96,514 psi
zinc = 610 ppm
phos = 754 ppm
moly = 94 ppm
.
.
106. 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.
.
.
107. 0W20 Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy, API SN synthetic = 96,364 psi
zinc = 742 ppm
phos = 677 ppm
moly = 81 ppm
This is an earlier version of this oil that did not have dexos 1 approval. See below for the later version of this oil that does have dexos 1 approval.
.
.
108. 5W30 Shell Rotella Gas Truck motor oil, synthetic, API SN Plus, GM dexos1-Gen 2 = 96,269 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2019.
Immediately below is a comparison of how the previously tested Traditional Heavy Duty Shell Rotella T Diesel oils compared to this Gas Truck oil:

15W40 “NEW” SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM = 72,022 psi

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

As you can see, the new Shell Rotella Gas Truck oil provides MUCH HIGHER wear protection capability than the Shell Rotella T Diesel oils tested previously. This is further proof that Traditional Heavy Duty Diesel oil is NOT a good choice for High Performance gas engines.
.
.
109. 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN synthetic = 95,920 psi
zinc = 877 ppm
phos = 921 ppm
moly = 72 ppm
This is an earlier version that is no longer available. It has been replaced by a new formula version that now has GM dexos 1 approval. See above for the new version’s ranking position.
.
.
110. 5W30 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic (gold bottle) = 95,717 psi
zinc = 818 ppm
phos = 883 ppm
moly = 90 ppm
titanium = 44 ppm
This is an earlier version that is no longer available. It has been replaced by 5W30 Castrol Edge Extended Performance (gold bottle). See below for its ranking position.
.
.
111. 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.
.
.
112. 5W20 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 95,543 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
NOTE: The two oils above were tested weeks apart, but due to the similarities in their wear scar sizes, their averages ended up the same.
.
.
113. 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 95,392 psi
zinc = 830 ppm
phos = 791 ppm
moly = 1 ppm
This is an older version of this oil that is no longer available. See 5W30 Castrol GTX “ULTRACLEAN” below, for current capability.
.
.
114. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
moly = 52 ppm
.
.
115. 20W50 Quicksilver Motorcycle 4-Stroke Oil, API SM, JASO MA/MA2, synthetic = 95,306 psi
This oil is a product of Mercury Marine.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
116. 25W50 Quicksilver High Performance 4-Stroke Marine Engine Oil, NMMA FC-W Certified, synthetic blend = 95,229 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
117. 5W30 Havoline, API SN conventional = 95,098 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
118. 25W50 Mercury Racing 4-Stroke Marine Engine Oil, NMMA FC-W Certified, synthetic blend = 95,056 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2022.
For additional information on this motor oil, see Tech Article “#69. Test Data on “THICK” Motor Oils and reasons why they “SHOULD” be used in Air-Cooled Engines”.
.
.
119. 5W30 Valvoline SynPower, API SN synthetic = 94,942 psi
zinc = 969 ppm
phos = 761 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
.
.
120. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 5W30 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional = 94,864 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of 100,011 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability “WENT DOWN 5.1%”.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD.
moly = TBD
.
.
121. 5W30 Valvoline Premium Conventional, API SN = 94,744 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
122. 5W20 Mobil 1, Advanced Full Synthetic , API SN synthetic = 94,663 psi
zinc = 764 ppm
phos = 698 ppm
moly = 76 ppm
This is an earlier version that is no longer available. It has been replaced by 5W20 Mobil 1 that includes GM dexos 1 approval. See below for its ranking position.
.
.
123. 5W20 Valvoline SynPower, API SN synthetic = 94,460 psi
zinc = 1045 ppm
phos = 742 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
This is an earlier version that is no longer available. It has been replaced by 5W20 Valvoline SynPower that includes GM dexos 1 approval. See below for its ranking position.
.
.
124. 10W40 Bel-Ray, Friction Modified, Thumper Racing 4T, 4-Sroke Motorcycle engine oil, NOT for wet clutch applications, meets API SN and JASO MB requirements, conventional = 93,958 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2017.
.
.
125. 10W40 Mobil 1 Racing 4T, four stroke Motorcycle oil, synthetic = 93,661 psi
This oil claims to meet or exceed API SN.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
126. 5W30 Eneos, API SN, synthetic = 93,135 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
127. 5W40 High Performance Lubricants Racing Oil, synthetic = 92,693 psi
The bottle calls this oil, “Bad Ass”.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Summer 2016.
.
.
128. 5W30 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic blend (red bottle) = 92,639 psi
High Mileage oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils include “Seal Swell” chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.
zinc = TBD
phos =TBD
moly = TBD
This was the latest current version of this oil when tested at the end of 2015. The psi value of this oil, which came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F, put it in the OUTSTANDING Wear Protection Category.

However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. And this oil did have an 8.3% drop in capability. At that reduced value down to 84,928 psi, this much hotter and thinner oil dropped to the GOOD Wear Protection Category.
.
.
129. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN synthetic = 92,569 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The older API “SM” version of this oil, produced a wear protection capability value of 115,612 psi.
.
.
130. 0W20 Pennzoil Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from Natural Gas, API SN, synthetic
(silver bottle with blue vertical stripe on the label) = 92,504 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested in Spring 2016.
.
.
131. 5W30 Lucas, API SN conventional = 92,073 psi
zinc = 992 ppm
phos = 760 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
.
.
132. 5W30 Mag 1 FMX, GM dexos1 Gen 2, ILSAC GF-6A, API SP, synthetic = 91,822 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2021.
This motor oil was disappointing in that its wear protection capability psi value is 18% LOWER/WORSE than the 5W30 Mag 1 FMX, European Formula, API SM, synthetic for Gas and Diesel cars and light trucks that was tested here in Spring 2016.
.
.
133. 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
.
.
134. 5W30 Castrol GTX High Mileage, API SN, synthetic blend = 91,404 psi
High Mileage oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils include “Seal Swell” chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.
zinc = TBD
phos =TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
135. 10W30 Bel-Ray, Friction Modified, Thumper Racing 4T, 4-Sroke Motorcycle engine oil, NOT for wet clutch applications, meets API SM and JASO MB requirements, conventional = 91,358 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2017.
.
.
136. 15W40 John Deere, Plus-50 II, Heavy Duty Diesel Oil, API CK-4, SN = 91,273 psi
It’s onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 270*F
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2021.
.
.
137. 5W30 Maxima RS530 Synthetic Racing Oil = 91,162 psi
zinc = 2162 ppm
phos = 2294 ppm
moly = 181 ppm
.
.
138. 5W30 Red Line, API SN synthetic = 91,028 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
139. 0W20 Castrol Edge, Fluid Titanium Technology, API SN, dexos 1 approved, synthetic
(black bottle) = 90,745 psi
zinc = TBD
phos =TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested in Spring 2016.
.
.
140. 5W20 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 90,434 psi
zinc = 964 ppm
phos = 892 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
.
.
141. 0W40 Amsoil Max-Duty Signature Series Diesel oil, API CK-4/SN, CJ-4, CI-4+, CF, ACEA E9, E7, synthetic = 90,307 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2017.
Comparing the three Amsoil Max-Duty Signature Series Diesel Oils tested late 2017/early 2018:
0W40 = 90,307 psi
5W40 = 87,154 psi
15W40 = 87,881 psi
Oil psi value differences of less than 10% are not significant, and oils within that range can be considered approximately equivalent. These three oils are all within a range of about 3.5%, which is very consistent for oils in the same product line. Therefore, any of these three oils would provide essentially the same level of wear protection. But, the 0W40 will flow the best when cold, making it the top choice of the three.
.
.
142. 10W30 Quaker State Defy High Mileage, API SL semi-synthetic = 90,226 psi
Defy has always been a High Mileage oil since it was first introduced. But, “High Mileage” hasn’t always been prominently displayed on the front label. Newer bottles do now prominently display “High Mileage” on the front label. High Mileage oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils include “Seal Swell” chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm
moly = 99 ppm
.
.
143. 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
.
.
144. 5W20 Valvoline Premium Conventional, API SN = 90,144 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
145. 10W30 Motorcraft Super Duty Diesel oil, conventional = 89,829 psi
This oil claims it has over 1,000 ppm phosphorus for better wear protection.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested at the end of 2017.
.
.
146. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 89,659 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of 95,392 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability “WENT DOWN 6%”.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD.
moly = TBD
.
.
147. 5W20 Mobil 1, Extended Performance, dexos 1 approved, API SN, synthetic = 89,599 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2017.
.
.
148. 0W20 Valvoline SynPower, API SN, synthetic = 89,556 psi
zinc = TBD
phos =TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested in Spring 2016.
.
.
149. 5W30 Havoline, API SN synthetic = 89,406 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
150. 5W30 Penrite 10 Tenths Racing 5, synthetic = 88,992 psi
This oil comes from Australia in 1 liter bottles (slightly more than a quart), and can be ordered in the U.S. from Summit Racing Equipment. It claims low friction for max power, and says it is not suitable for motorcycles with wet clutches. It also claims to have a full zinc formula.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
151. 0W20 Amsoil XL (Extended Life), API SN, ACEA A1/B1, GM dexos1 gen2, synthetic = 88,860 psi
This oil claims 25% more cleaning power than Amsoil OE.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2018. At the time of this test, 0W20 Amsoil XL cost about 27% “LESS” than Amsoil’s top of the line 0W20 Signature Series motor oil.
.
.
152. 30 wt Castrol Heavy Duty, API SM conventional = 88,089 psi
zinc = 907 ppm
phos = 829 ppm
moly = 56 ppm
.
.
153. 5W30 Mobil 1 High Mileage, API SL, synthetic = 88,081 psi
High Mileage oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils include “Seal Swell” chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.
zinc = TBD
phos =TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
154. 20W50 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 87,930 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
155. 15W40 Amsoil Max-Duty Signature Series Diesel Oil, API CK-4/SN, CJ-4, CI-4+, CF, ACEA E9, E7 synthetic = 87,881 psi
It claims 6X more wear protection than required by Detroit Diesel DD13 Scuffing Test.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested early 2018.
Comparing the three Amsoil Max-Duty Signature Series Diesel Oils tested late 2017/early 2018:
0W40 = 90,307 psi
5W40 = 87,154 psi
15W40 = 87,881 psi
Oil psi value differences of less than 10% are not significant, and oils within that range can be considered approximately equivalent. These three oils are all within a range of about 3.5%, which is very consistent for oils in the same product line. Therefore, any of these three oils would provide essentially the same level of wear protection. But, the 0W40 will flow the best when cold, making it the top choice of the three.
.
.
156. 5W30 Valvoline Nextgen 50% Recycled Oil, API SN conventional = 87,563 psi
zinc = 947 ppm
phos = 778 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
.
.
157. 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN = 87,241 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a silver bottle with a blue vertical stripe on the label.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This is an earlier version that is no longer available. It has been replaced by a new formula version that now has GM dexos 1 approval.
.
.
158. 5W40 Amsoil Max-Duty Signature Series Diesel Oil, API CK-4/SN, CJ-4, CI-4+, CF, ACEA E9, E7 synthetic = 87,154 psi
It claims 6X more wear protection than required by Detroit Diesel DD13 Scuffing Test.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested early 2018.
Comparing the three Amsoil Max-Duty Signature Series Diesel Oils tested late 2017/early 2018:
0W40 = 90,307 psi
5W40 = 87,154 psi
15W40 = 87,881 psi
Oil psi value differences of less than 10% are not significant, and oils within that range can be considered approximately equivalent. These three oils are all within a range of about 3.5%, which is very consistent for oils in the same product line. Therefore, any of these three oils would provide essentially the same level of wear protection. But, the 0W40 will flow the best when cold, making it the top choice of the three.
.
.
159. 0W20 Amsoil OE (Original Equipment), API SN, ACEA A1/B1, GM dexos1 gen2, synthetic = 86,622 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2018. At the time of this test, 0W20 Amsoil OE cost about 40% “LESS” than Amsoil’s top of the line 0W20 Signature Series motor oil.
.
.
160. 5W50 Mobil 1, API SN, synthetic = 86,456 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
161. 10W30 Joe Gibbs HR4 Hotrod Oil synthetic = 86,270 psi
zinc = 1247 ppm
phos = 1137 ppm
moly = 24 ppm
.
.
162. 5W20 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 86,034 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
163. 5W20 Mobil 1, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic = 85,893 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This was the latest current version of this oil when tested Fall 2015
.
.
164. 15W40 Mystik JT8, Super Heavy Duty Engine Oil, synthetic blend, API CK-4/SN = 85,694 psi
This oil is made by CITGO Petroleum Corporation.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested in early 2022.
.
.
165. 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
.
.
166. 5W20 NAPA Synthetic, API SN, silver bottle = 85,550 psi
The bottle claims this oil exceeds the dexos 1 spec, but it does NOT have the dexos 1 logo. The bottle also says this oil was made by Ashland Inc.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Summer 2017.
.
.
167. 5W30 Castrol Edge w/Syntec, API SN synthetic (formerly Castrol Syntec), (black bottle) = 85,179 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
168. 20W50 Millers Classic Performance Oil, API SJ, conventional = 84,764 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
Claims high ZDDP level. It comes from England in 1 Liter bottles, which is slightly more than a quart, and is available in the U.S.
.
.
169. 5W30 Walmart Supertech, API SN, dexos 1 gen 2 approved, synthetic, silver gray bottle = 84,570 psi
This oil cost $4.97 per quart in December 2017.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2017.
.
.
170. 0W16 Toyota motor oil, synthetic, API SN = 84,295 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2019.
.
.
171. 5W30 Schaeffer’s Supreme 9000, API SN, synthetic = 84,118 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
172. 5W30 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 84,009 psi
zinc = 942 ppm
phos = 817 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
.
.
173. 20W50 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 83,487 psi
zinc = 588 ppm
phos = 697 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
.
.
174. 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
.
.
175. 5W30 Mobil 1 Extended Performance 15,000 mile, API SN synthetic = 83,263 psi
zinc = 890 ppm
phos = 819 ppm
moly = 104 ppm
.
.
176. 0W20 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic (gold bottle) = 82,867 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
177. 0W40 Mobil 1, European Formula, API SN, made in the U.S., synthetic = 82,644 psi
This is an earlier version that has been replaced by 0W40 Mobil 1 “FS” European Car Formula. See above for the newer version’s ranking position.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
178. 5W30 Mobil 1 Annual Protection, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, ACEA A1/B1, synthetic = 82,486 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2018.
I had resisted requests to test this oil ever since it was introduced, until now. That is because I did not want to have anything to do with the massive false promotion of this oil, with its ridiculously bogus claim that it can go 20,000 miles between oil changes. The truth is that this oil is intended only to maximize profits for Mobil. Its pricing was originally about $15.00 per quart, while Mobil 1’s other synthetic oils were priced at about $9.50 per quart. But, by the time this oil was tested here, its price had dropped by $3.00, to $12.00 per quart. The drop in price was apparently due to poor sales at the original $15.00 per quart price. Of course it is common knowledge that demand drives price in the marketplace.

I finally decided to test it at this time, because people who were gullible enough to fall for this oil’s false advertising, deserved to see Engineering test data that shows just how this oil actually performs, regarding wear protection capability, its onset of thermal breakdown point, and to understand why using this ridiculously long oil change interval is NOT in the best interest of their engine.

The claims and advertising for this motor oil are amazingly false, even for motor oil products which are famous for false advertising. On the bottle it says to change the oil at 1 year or 20,000 miles, whichever comes first, unless your vehicle is under warranty. In that case, it says to follow the manufacturer’s oil change recommendation. It also says their 1 year or 20,000 mile oil change recommendation is NOT for vehicles subjected to severe usage, such as racing, trailer pulling, hauling, commercial use, use in dusty conditions, or prolonged idling. So, the only thing left, is that they aim this oil at normal daily driver vehicles that are out of warranty.

The heavily promoted big claim that they push, about being able to use this oil for 20,000 miles, is disgracefully false. Mobil should be ashamed of themselves for this Marketing scam. By the time a normal daily driven street vehicle reaches 5,000 miles, even on well formulated synthetic oil, that oil is dark, dirty, contaminated, is becoming more and more diluted by fuel blow-by as time goes on, has been suffering some thermal breakdown deterioration, and fine abrasive wear accumulations and insolubles will have started to build-up, that are not pulled out by the oil filter. So, by that point, any motor oil is in definite need of changing. And by changing it at 5,000 miles, you will be doing what’s best for your engine, and you will also prevent any concerns about sludge formation. People who go much longer than a 5,000 mile oil change interval, just don’t understand the numerous technical reasons why extended oil change intervals are NOT a good idea for their engine, even if they use very expensive synthetic oil marketed as extended change interval oil. See my Tech Article 25 for more details.

This oil’s bottle also says that it is the ultimate full synthetic oil, and that it maximizes wear protection, both of which are laughably false, considering how poor it performed in my Engineering testing for wear protection. And the fact that in my overall testing, it is among the worst Mobil 1 oils regarding wear protection capability.

And to add insult to injury, the onset of thermal breakdown for this oil was at a very low and disappointing 235*F, which is among the very worst I’ve seen. Buyer beware, you can never trust motor oil Advertising to tell the truth.

Originally, I was just completely disgusted with their Marketing Scam about insane 20,000 mile oil changes. But, I had expected it to perform very well regarding wear protection capability and its onset of thermal breakdown. After all, they started out charging a WHOPPING 50% more for this oil. And most people would expect to get something special for such a high price. So, I was as SHOCKED as anyone, to see its pathetic performance regarding wear protection capability and thermal breakdown, when it is such a high priced and massively promoted newly formulated motor oil.

All in all, by the measures that count, this still overpriced oil is a very poor choice for any engine, when so many other far superior motor oils are readily available, that cost even less.
.
.
179. 0W40 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN, synthetic = 81,863 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
180. 5W30 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 81,800 psi
zinc = 1784 ppm
phos = 1539 ppm
moly = 598 ppm
.
.
181. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (extreme performance racing oil) synthetic = 81,723 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of only 74,860 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability “WENT UP 9%”.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
182. 0W30 Mobil 1, API SN, Advanced Fuel Economy, synthetic = 81,240 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD.
moly = TBD
.
.
183. 15W40 Cummins Onan, OnaMax Heavy Duty Diesel Oil, API CK-4, CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, SN = 80,790 psi
Its onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 255*F
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2021.
.
.
184. 5W30 Peak, API SN synthetic = 80,716 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
185. 5W30 Pro-Max, synthetic, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, ACEA C3-10 = 79,674 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2019.
.
.
186. 0W20 Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy, API SN, dexos 1 approved, synthetic = 79,612
psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested in Spring 2016. At that time, this was the latest current version of this oil.
.
.
187. 5W30 Castrol GTX “ULTRACLEAN, API SN conventional = 78,664 psi
This oil claims 50% better sludge protection than Industry standards.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This was the latest current version of this oil when tested Summer 2017. For reference, this oil’s wear protection capability dropped 16,728 psi, and it dropped over 50 Ranking positions, compared to the previous 5W30 Castrol GTX that was NOT called ULTRACLEAN.
.
.
188. 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
.
.
189. 5W20 JR4.0, JR1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 78,419 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Summer 2019.
.
.
190. 30wt Amsoil Break-In Oil conventional = 78,192 psi
zinc = 2051 ppm
phos = 1917 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
.
.
191. 20W50 Resolute Racing Oil, API SN conventional = 77,554 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil cost only $2.49 per quart when bought for this test. It is a Regional Oil from the Mid-Western U.S. farm country.
.
.
192. 5W40 Amsoil Premium Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CF, SN, SM, ACEA E7, E9 = 77,207 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
193. 10W30 Renegade Pro Series Racing Oil, synthetic blend = 77,136 psi
zinc = TBD, but bottle claims over 3000 ppm
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
194. 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
.
.
195. 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN conventional (yellow bottle) = 76,989 psi
zinc = 839 ppm
phos = 840 ppm
moly = 267 ppm
.
.
196. 10W40 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional (blue bottle) = 76,806 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
197. 10W30 Honda Marine Engine Oil, conventional, NMMA FC-W Certified = 76,780 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2021.
.
.
198. 5W30 Lucas API SM synthetic = 76,584 psi
zinc = 1134 ppm
phos = 666 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
.
.
199. 5W30 VP Racing Lubricants (a Division of VP Racing Fuels), High ZDDP, Pro Grade Racing Oil, synthetic = 76,535 psi
zinc = 2,000 ppm
phos = 1810 ppm
moly = TBD
TBN = 2.6, is an acid neutralizer. But, normal street oils start out with a TBN value of at least 6.0 or higher. Therefore, with a very low TBN value of only 2.6, this Racing Oil can only be used for the very short term, and cannot go the normal distance between oil changes.

This oil claims to be formulated for Serious Racing. But, its pathetically poor 76,535 psi performance proves that claim is only false advertising, and a fraudulent claim.

These smaller Hotrod and Racing High ZDDP Oil Companies, do NOT know what they are doing. They just dump a huge amount of ZDDP into their oil and call it a day. They also are not aware that Oil Industry Testing has shown that more than 1400 ppm (parts per million) zinc can actually CAUSE wear, damage, or failure. And they apparently are not capable of testing their own products, or are not capable of testing them properly. Because if they did, they would know how bad their product performance is.

This oil was tested early 2023. And it is made by Maverick Performance Products for VP Racing Fuels.

For those who might consider using this oil in Traditional Old School American flat tappet, pushrod, gas engines, consider my following recommendations:

Stock or lightly modified versions of flat tappet engines are best protected by motor oils that produce AT LEAST 100,000 psi or HIGHER film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance, found here on my Wear Protection Ranking List.

Racing and High Performance street versions of flat engines are best protected by motor oils that produce AT LEAST 120,000 psi or HIGHER film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance, found here on my Wear Protection Ranking List.

NOTE: THE HIGHER THE PSI VALUE, THE BETTER THE WEAR PROTECTION. SO HERE, MORE PSI IS “ALWAYS” BETTER.

In Engineering we have something called “Margin of Safety”, which represents how a product’s capability, compares to what it will be subjected to in service. A POSITIVE Margin of Safety indicates how much a products capability is BETTER than what will be needed In service.

So, we would like to use products with a sizable POSITIVE Margin of Safety to ensure that there will never be a problem.

On the other hand, a NEGATIVE Margin of Safety indicates how much a products capability is WORSE than, or BELOW what will be needed on service.

So, let’s look at the Margin of Safety values for this VP Racing oil compared to what is needed to meet my flat tappet psi recommendations just above.

This VP Racing oil has a 36% NEGATIVE Margin of Safety for Racing and High Performance street flat tappet engines. So, Engine failure with this oil is extremely likely.

This VP Racing oil has a 23% NEGATIVE Margin of Safety for Stock or lightly modified flat tappet engines. So, Engine failure with this oil is very likely.

Now let’s look at the Margin of Safety using the Number 1 Ranked motor oil on my Wear Protection Ranking List, which is 5W30 Quaker State Full Synthetic (QSFS), API SP, with 152,674 psi.

This 5W30 QSFS oil has a 27% POSITIVE Margin of Safety for Racing and High Performance street flat tappet engines, which is a WHOPPING 63% BETTER than the 5W30 VP Racing Oil. So, there will never be an oil related problem using this QSFS motor oil.

This 5W30 QSFS oil has a 53% POSITIVE Margin of Safety for Stock or lightly modified flat tappet engines, which is a WHOPPING 76% BETTER than the 5W30 VP Racing Oil. So, there will never be an oil related problem using this QSFS motor oil.

Obviously, 5W30 QSFS is BY FAR THE BEST CHOICE to use in any flat tappet engine.

As you can see, the 5W30 VP Racing Lubricants, High ZDDP, Pro Grade Racing Oil’s EXTREMELY POOR PERFORMANCE is NOT good enough to use in a Traditional American flat tappet engine. Using this oil in a flat tappet engine, is highly likely to result in WIPED cam lobes. And its pathetic wear protection capability performance also means it would be a BAD choice to use in any other type of engine as well. Buyer Beware!!!
.
.
200. 5W30 GM’s AC Delco dexos 1 API SN semi-synthetic = 76,501 psi
zinc = 878 ppm
phos = 758 ppm
moly = 72 ppm
.
.
201. 10W30 Mobil Super 5000, API SN, conventional = 76,461 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested at the end of 2015.
.
.
202. 5W30 Amsoil European Motor Oil, synthetic, API SN, ACEA C3, for gasoline or diesel engines = 76,446 psi.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2022.
This is among THE WORST performing Amsoil products I have ever tested. So, it has added to the destruction of Amsoil’s reputation for always providing top of the Industry products that we could feel good about using, even without testing them first. This oil’s performance is so disappointing, that it is further proof we can never trust how good any Amsoil product really is, without testing it here first.

And what is really troubling, is that we know Amsoil knows how to formulate High Performance motor oils. They rank number 2 for the all-time best performing motor oils I have ever tested, with their 5W30 Amsoil Signature Series, API SP motor oil, which produced an amazing 141,851 psi. So, when they produce a pathetic motor oil like this one, we know they deliberately did it. Buyer beware!!!

If you are looking for a lightweight Diesel oil to use, rather than using this very poor performing lightweight Diesel oil, I suggest you go to my Tech Article # 30, where you can select from other lightweight Diesel oils that actually perform very well.
.
.
203. 5W30 amazonbasics motor oil, synthetic, API SN Plus, GM dexos 1-Gen 2 = 76,237 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2019.
The bottle says this oil is manufactured by Warren Distribution, Inc.
.
.
204. 5W30 Motul 8100 X-clean, API SM, synthetic = 76,166 psi
This oil is made in France, and comes in a 1 liter bottle, which = 1.05 qts
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
For reference, 5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic, produced a wear protection capability of 112,464 psi
.
.
205. 20W50 Mobil 1 V-Twin 4 Cycle Motorcycle Oil, API SJ, synthetic = 75,855 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
206. 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
.
.
207. 5W30 Castrol Edge Extended Performance (gold bottle), API SP, ILSAC GF-6 (this was NOT listed as 6A like other motor oils with the latest ILSAC certification), GM dexos 1 Gen 2, synthetic = 75,212 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested summer 2022.
There is no excuse for an API SP motor oil in 2022, producing such a pathetically poor wear protection capability psi value.

For many, many years, Castrol was an excellent performing, Top Tier motor oil brand. I used them my self for many years. And in the early years of this Engineering Blog, they tested very well. All was good.

But, the huge Corporation BP (British Petroleum) bought Castrol Motor Oils around the year 2000. Everything continued along fine….UNTIL around 2015 or so, when every Castrol motor oil I tested had major drops in their wear protection capability. But, no other motor oils did that in my Testing. That performance drop applied ONLY to Castrol motor oils.

It seemed rather obvious that the BP Bean Counters got involved with their Castrol Motor Oil subsidiary, to increase the profits that Castrol brought into BP. It is nearly impossible to drastically increase sales of any motor oil brand overnight. So, the only thing left for them to do, was cut costs without lowering the price.

Cutting costs means reducing development and manufacturing costs. And high performance oils require costly formulation additive package components. They apparently figured that the Castrol motor oils performed better than they needed to. So, if they cheapened those additive package components across the whole product line, the oils would still be “good enough” for ordinary vehicles, and no one would know. So, that would provide them with the significant increase in profits they were looking for. But, I caught them in the act.

I was so disgusted by what they did, that I stopped using Castrol products, I stopped recommending Castrol products, and I stopped wasting my time, effort and money, testing Castrol products. So, for about seven years, Castrol motor oils were dead to me. Then in the summer of 2022, some of my Blog readers REALLY wanted to know if the latest API SP version of Castrol might have improved.

So, against my better judgment, I grudgingly agreed to test 5W30 Castrol Edge Extended Performance, API SP, ILSAC GF-6. It was tested honestly and fairly, and was tested exactly the same as every other oil I have tested over the past nine years that I have had this Blog. And you can see by the psi result above, Castrol motor oil performance has NOT improved at all.

Castrol motor oil products are STILL just as bad as they were back in 2015 when the whole Castrol product line was ruined by their parent Company. So, I am again done with testing Castrol motor oils, which have become a Second Tier motor oil brand that is not even worth considering. Because there are over 200 other motor oils that perform BETTER than this pitiful motor oil that is Castrol’s Top of the Line product. Very sad… Buyer beware. As they say, “Money is the root of all evil”.
.
.
208. 5W30 Mystik JT8, GM dexos1 Gen 2, GF-6A, API SP, synthetic = 74,996 psi
This motor oil is manufactured by CITGO Petroleum Corporation.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2021.
There is no excuse for an API SP motor oil in 2021, producing such a pathetically poor wear protection capability psi value. Buyer beware.
.
.
209. 5W30 Amsoil Diesel Oil for Pickups, SUV’s and Cars, synthetic = 74,946 psi
This oil has no certifications, but claims it is for applications that call for:
GM dexosD, dexos 2
Chrysler MS-11106
Ford WSS-M2C214-B1
ACEA C3
And it “claims” to provide up to 6X more wear protection than required by a leading Industry Standard. It also says do NOT use it in applications that require API CK-4, API SP or earlier API specifications.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2021.
This is BY FAR THE WORST performing Amsoil product I ever recall coming across. So, it has destroyed Amsoil’s reputation for always providing top of the Industry products that we could feel good about using, even without testing them first. This is so disappointing that now, we can never trust how good any Amsoil product really is, without testing it here first.

If you are looking for a lightweight Diesel oil to use, rather than using this very poor performing lightweight Diesel oil, I suggest you go to my Tech Article # 30, where you can select from other lightweight Diesel oils that actually perform very well.
.
.
210. 5W30 Castrol Edge Extended Performance, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic (gold bottle) = 74,899 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This was the latest current version of this oil when tested Fall 2015. For reference, this oil’s wear protection capability dropped 20,818 psi, and it dropped over 70 Ranking positions, compared to the original 5W30 Castrol Edge with Titanium.
.
.
211. “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 10W30 Comp Cams Muscle Car & Street Rod Oil semi-synthetic = 74,874 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the “Oil Extreme concentrate” added to it, has a wear protection capability of only 60,413 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability “WENT UP AN IMPRESSIVE 24%”.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD.
moly = TBD
.
.
212. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) synthetic = 74,860 psi
zinc = 1421 ppm
phos = 1338 ppm
moly = 204 ppm
.
.
213. 15W40 Cenpeco (Central Petroleum Company) S-3 Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF, CE, CD, SL, SJ, SH = 74,593 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
214. 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
.
.
215. 0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil = 73,811 psi
zinc = 1676 ppm
phos = 1637 ppm
moly = 1263 ppm
.
.
216. 5W30 Peak, API SN conventional = 73,690 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
217. 5W30 Precision Turbo & Engine HPL with Boosted Technology, synthetic = 73,637 psi
The bottle says this oil is manufactured by High Performance Lubricants.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2017. And its onset of thermal breakdown = 260*F.
.
.
218. 5W30 Mobil Super Synthetic, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved = 73,601 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
219. 5W30 Castrol GTX Magnatec, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic blend = 73,566 psi
This oil claims to have molecules that cling to parts, forming an extra layer of protection during warm-up, reducing engine wear.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
220. 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
.
.
221. 10W30 Driven GP-1, Synthetic Blend Racing Oil = 73,443 psi
zinc = 1248
phos = 1079
moly = 331
This oil was tested Fall 2022.
The psi value of this oil, came from testing it at the normal operating test temperature of 230*F.
However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, it produced 74,468 psi, which was up by 1.4%.
I also tested it for the onset of Thermal Breakdown, which was 265*F.
For extensive details on this motor oil, see Tech Article # 74.
.
.
222. 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
.
.
223. 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
.
.
224. 5W30 Amalie Elixir Oil, API SN, synthetic = 72,825 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
225. 5W20 Valvoline SynPower, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved = 72,581 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This was the latest current version of this oil when tested Fall 2015.
.
.
226. 5W30 Walmart Supertech, API SN, conventional, blue bottle = 72,521 psi
This oil cost $2.44 per quart in December 2017.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late 2017.
.
.
227. 5W20 Motorcraft, Friction Fighting Formula, API SN, synthetic blend = 72,144 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Summer 2017.
.
.
228. 15W40 “NEW” 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
.
.
229. Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 Nitro 70 Racing Oil semi-synthetic = 72,003 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
230. 0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil = 71,923 psi
zinc = 1693 ppm
phos = 1667 ppm
moly = 1326 ppm
.
.
231. 0W20 Kendall GT-1, with liquid Titanium, API SN, synthetic = 71,385 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested in Spring 2016.
.
.
232. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, partial synthetic = 71,377 psi
zinc = 1621 ppm
phos = 1437 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
.
.
233. 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
Yes it’s true, the old Rotella actually has LESS zinc than the new Rotella.
.
.
234. 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, partial synthetic = 71,206 psi
zinc = 1557 ppm
phos = 1651 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
.
.
235. 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
.
.
236. 5W20 Castrol Edge Extended Performance, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic (gold bottle) = 70,417 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This was the latest current version of this oil when tested Fall 2015. For reference, this oil’s wear protection capability dropped 29,566 psi, and it dropped over 100 Ranking positions, compared to the original 5W20 Castrol Edge with Titanium.
.
.
237. 15W50 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 70,235 psi
zinc = 1,133 ppm
phos = 1,168 ppm
moly = 83 ppm
.
.
238. 10W40 Resolute All Season Motor Oil, API SN conventional = 69,709 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil cost $2.49 per quart when bought for this test. It is a Regional Oil from the Mid-Western U.S. farm country.
.
.
239. 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
.
.
240. 5W40 Liqui Moly Leichtlauf High Tech Oil, synthetic = 69,580 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil is made in Germany and is available in the U. S. It comes in 1 Liter bottles which is slightly more than a quart.
.
.
241. 0W40 Castrol Edge with Syntec, API SN, European Formula, made in Belgium and sold in the U.S., synthetic (black bottle) = 69,307 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
242. 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec, API SL, European Formula, made in Germany and sold in the U.S., synthetic (black bottle) = 69,302 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
243. 30wt Edelbrock Break-In Oil conventional = 69,160 psi
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm
moly = 4 ppm
.
.
244. 5W30 High Performance Lubricants Break-In Oil, synthetic = 69,097 psi
zinc = the bottle claims high zinc
phos = the bottle claims high phos
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Summer 2016.
.
.
245. 5W30 Motorcraft, API SN synthetic = 68,782 psi
zinc = 796 ppm
phos = 830 ppm
moly = 75 ppm
.
.
246. 10W40 Edelbrock synthetic = 68,603 psi
zinc = 1193 ppm
phos = 1146 ppm
moly = 121 ppm
This oil is manufactured for Edelbrock by Torco.
.
.
247. 5W30 Quaker State Advanced Durability, API SN, conventional = 68,581 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2015
.
.
248. 5W30 Toyota Motor Oil, API SN conventional = 68,069 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
249. 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
.
.
250. 10W30 Champion Racing Oil, synthetic blend = 67,239 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
251. 10W30 ProHonda HP4S, 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil, API SJ, synthetic = 66,852 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2015
.
.
252. 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
.
.
253. 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
.
.
254. 10W30 Royal Purple HPS (High Performance Street), synthetic = 66,211 psi
zinc = 1774 ppm
phos = 1347 ppm
moly = 189 ppm
.
.
255. 5W30 Schaeffer Supreme 7000 Synthetic Plus, API SN = 66,099 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Fall 2015
.
.
256. 10W40 Valvoline 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil, API SJ, conventional = 65,553 psi
zinc = 1154 ppm
phos = 1075 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
.
.
257. 15W40 Swepco 306 Supreme Formula Engine Oil, with Dimonyl, conventional, API CI-4/SL, CF-2 = 65,185 psi
This oil is from Southwestern Petroleum Corporation.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
258. 5W30 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL, synthetic = 64,175 psi
zinc = 1765 ppm
phos = 2468 ppm
moly = 339 ppm
.
.
259. “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.
.
.
260. 5W30 PurOl Elite Series, synthetic = 63,282 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
261. Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil, conventional = 62,931 psi
zinc = 1170 ppm
phos = 1039 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
.
.
262. 10W40 Crane Cams Break-In Oil, conventional = 62,603 psi
zinc = TBD, but claims high zinc formula
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
263. 10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil, conventional = 62,538 psi
zinc = 2116 ppm
phos = 1855 ppm
moly = 871 ppm
.
.
264. 5W30 Motul 8100 ECO-nergy, API SL, synthetic = 61,880 psi
This oil is made in France, and comes in a 1 liter bottle, which = 1.05 qts
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
For reference, 5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic, produced a wear protection capability of 112,464 psi
.
.
265. 0W20 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL, synthetic = 60,941 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
266. 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.
.
.
267. 10W40 Torco TR-1 Racing Oil with MPZ, conventional = 59,905 psi
zinc = 1456 ppm
phos = 1150 ppm
moly = 227 ppm
.
.
268. 10W40 Summit Racing Premium Racing Oil, API SL = 59,483 psi
This oil is made for Summit by I.L.C.
zinc = 1764 ppm
phos = 1974 ppm
moly = 41 ppm
NOTE: This oil line was discontinued in Spring 2013.
.
.
269. 10W40 Edelbrock, conventional = 59,120 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil is manufactured for Edelbrock by Torco.
.
.
270. Castor bean oil-based (NOT petroleum-based) Castrol, Power 1, R40 (40wt) Racing Oil = 58,049 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested late Summer 2022.

I have said that I would no longer waste my time, effort and money, to test Castrol products because of their extremely poor performance that began nearly ten years ago. But, I made an exception for this very unique castor bean oil-based lubricating oil.

This oil is recommended for Classic Race Cars and Motorcycles. It requires frequent drain intervals. It is NOT suitable for normal road use. It is manufactured in the EU (European Union). It is not available in the USA, and was purchased from the UK (United Kingdom) for this test. So, the Engineering Test Data here, is primarily intended for those who use this oil in some parts of the world, which may also be of some interest to others.

The oil tested here is a newer version of an older oil that was simply known as Castrol R Racing Oil, which had some popularity in USA 2-stroke Motorcycle Racing as pre-mix oil, back in the 1970’s. Back then, the 2-stroke exhaust had a unique smell from burning the castor bean oil, that many people loved to smell. During this test, I did not smell any 2-stroke exhaust, but the smell I did notice while working with this oil while it was heated for the testing, smelled similar to dry livestock feed I have smelled in the past.

This oil has been used as 4-stroke engine oil, 2-stroke pre-mix oil, and as transmission oil. It has a far reaching history, and is how the Castrol product got its name around a hundred years ago. Then it went on to become the Company’s name over 60 years ago.
Castor Oil became:
Cast-er-oil, which became:
Cast-r-oil, which became:
Cast-r-ol, which became:
Castrol that we know today.

If you research this oil enough, you will find many claims of impressive performance and benefits. Unfortunately, like most all information from the Oil Industry, as you can see from this oil’s appallingly poor psi performance value and ranking above, those were just more false advertising and fraudulent claims.

Castrol which has been owned by BP (British Petroleum) for a good number of years now, ruined its own products around 2015 or so, by greatly reducing their oils’ wear protection capabilities. This was apparently done to reduce costs and increase profits. Sadly this once Top Tier Oil Brand, has been reduced to only a Second Tier Brand that is not even worth considering now.

This oil is aimed at RACING ENGINES, but its performance capability so incredibly BAD, and its Ranking position is so LOW, that it could very well damage or destroy those engines. This is THE WORST performing Castrol oil I have ever tested. I do NOT recommend this oil. I would NEVER use this oil, and I would NEVER recommend this oil to anyone else. There are a WHOPPING 264 other oils on this Ranking List, at the time of this writing, that perform BETTER than this oil. BUYER BEWARE!!!

NOTE: This oil’s incredibly poor wear protection capability performance is NOT the fault of being castor bean oil-based. Because the base oil does NOT determine an oil’s wear protection capability. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its factory additive package which contains the extreme pressure, anti-wear components. So, the poor performance of this oil rests entirely on the Castrol Company for cheaping out on its additive package.
.
.
271. 10W40 Spectro Motor-Guard High Performance Motorcycle Oil, API SL, conventional = 57,977 psi
zinc = 1800 ppm (claimed on bottle)
phos = 1800 ppm (claimed on bottle)
moly = TBD
.
.
272. 10W40 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, partial synthetic = 57,864 psi
zinc = TBD, but the bottle claims high zinc
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
273. 0W20 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 57,228 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
274. “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.
.
.
275. “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.
.
.
276. 30wt Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, Break-In Oil, conventional = 56,020 psi
zinc = TBD, but the bottle claims high zinc
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
277. 0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil = 55,080 psi
zinc = 1952 ppm
phos = 1671 ppm
moly = 1743 ppm
.
.
278. “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.
.
.
279. 10W30 Comp Cams Break-In Oil, conventional = 51,749 psi
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm
moly = 180 ppm
.
.
280. “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.
.
.
281. 15W50 Joe Gibbs Driven BR Break-In oil, conventional = 51,299 psi
NOTE: Total Seal also sells this Break-In Oil with their label on it.
zinc = TBD, but high levels are claimed on the bottle.
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
282. “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.
.
.
283. 30wt Lucas Break-In Oil, conventional = 49,455 psi
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
.
.
284. 5W30 STP Motor Oil, synthetic, API SN Plus, GM dexos 1-Gen 2 = 47,837 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil was tested Spring 2019.
.
.
285. 5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven BR30 Break-In Oil, conventional = 47,483 psi
NOTE: Total Seal also sells this Break-In Oil with their label on it.
zinc = TBD, but high levels are claimed on the bottle.
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
.
286. 15W30 Yamalube, Performance Full-Synthetic with Ester, Motorcycle oil, JASO MA (Gold Bottle) = 0 psi, yes 0 psi, that is NOT a typo. This oil was tested several times, exactly the same as every other motor oil is tested on this Blog. And this oil COMPLETELY FAILED and SEIZED EVERY TIME it was tested, which resulted in a 0 psi value. No other oil has ever performed so badly when subjected to the Engineering torture testing that every oil is subjected to here. For better or worse, I can only post the test results the way they came out.
This oil was tested Spring 2019.

Keep in mind that my Engineering motor oil torture testing is designed to reach each oil’s load carrying capability limit, which is then measured, documented, and used for comparison against other motor oils. So, in order reach the load carrying capability limit of every oil, my test procedure and equipment are designed to load oils much more heavily than actual running engines are designed to do. Therefore, an actual running engine may operate acceptably with a low performing oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, as long that engine does not load its oil beyond the load carrying capability of the oil being used.

My Wear Protection Ranking List provides information that allows people to choose the level of wear protection capability they desire for their particular engine, which cannot be found anywhere else. The HIGHER the psi value on my Ranking List, the BETTER the Wear Protection. Since you have to buy oil for your engine anyway, it is in your engine’s best interest, to buy a highly ranked, high performance motor oil. The better the oil’s performance, the safer your engine.
.
540 RAT

.
====================

.

====================

.

SECTION 2 – MOTOR OIL VISCOSITY SELECTION

THE BENEFITS OF USING THINNER OIL:

• Thinner oil flows quicker at cold start-up to begin lubricating critical engine components much more quickly than thicker oil can. Most engine wear takes place during cold start-up before oil flow can reach all the components (the longer an engine has been sitting, the more of a concern this becomes), and during warm-up while the oil is still thicker and not flowing as freely as it does during normal hot operating temperature. So, quicker flowing thinner oil will help reduce start-up and warm-up engine wear, which is actually reducing wear overall.

• The more free flowing thinner oil during cold start-up and warm-up, is also much less likely to cause the oil filter bypass to open up, compared to thicker oil. Of course if the bypass opened up, that would allow unfiltered oil to be pumped through the engine. The colder the ambient temperature, and the more rpm used when the engine is cold, the more important this becomes.

• Thinner oil also flows more freely when fully warmed-up to normal operating temperatures. And oil FLOW is lubrication, but oil pressure is NOT lubrication. Oil pressure is only a measurement of resistance to flow. Running thicker oil just to up the oil pressure is the wrong thing to do, because that only reduces oil flow/lubrication. Oil pressure in and of itself, is NOT what we are after.

• The more free flowing thinner oil will also drain back to the oil pan quicker than thicker oil. So, thinner oil can help maintain a higher oil level in the oil pan during operation, which keeps the oil pump pickup from possibly sucking air during braking and cornering.

•The old rule of thumb for desired oil pressure, that we should have at least 10 psi for every 1,000 rpm, pertains to, and is highly recommended for High Performance and Racing engines. Engine bearing clearances are primarily what determines the oil viscosity required for any given engine. (NOTE: Viscosity does NOT determine an oil’s wear protection capability, like many people think. Wear protection capability is determined by an oil’s additive package, which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components. That is why 5W30 oils can perform so much better than thicker oils in my wear protection capability testing). But, whatever the bearing clearance, for High Performance and Racing engines, it is best to run the thinnest oil we can, that will still maintain at least the old rule of thumb oil pressure, even if that means using a high volume oil pump to achieve that. A high volume oil pump/thinner oil combo is much preferred over running a standard volume oil pump/thicker oil combo. Because oil “flow” is our goal for ideal oiling, NOT simply high oil pressure. So, one of the benefits of running a high volume oil pump, is that it will allow us to enjoy all the benefits of running thinner oil, while still maintaining desirable oil pressure.

.
But, for normal daily driver street engines, it is acceptable to use the old rule of thumb only as an “approximate” general guideline, not an “absolute requirement”. And for those engines, no matter what their bearing clearance is, it is best to run the thinnest oil we can, that will still maintain at least “reasonable” oil pressure, that is not too far below the old rule of thumb oil pressure.

.
Using thicker oil just to achieve higher oil pressure, will simply reduce oil flow for no good reason. The oil pump relief valve determines the max oil pressure an engine can make, no matter what the oil viscosity is. And in some engines, the relief valve limits oil pressure to a max of 65 psi. But, that does not mean the engine’s redline has to be limited to exactly 6,500 rpm because of that. Oil pressure does NOT determine the engine’s redline, the mechanical design of the engine does.

Plain bearings, such as rod and main bearings, are lubricated by oil flow, not by oil pressure. Oil pressure is NOT what keeps these parts separated. Oil pressure serves only to supply the oil to the clearance between the bearings and the crankshaft journals. Those parts are kept apart by the incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge that is formed as the liquid oil is pulled in by the spinning crankshaft. As long as sufficient oil is supplied by the necessary oil pressure mentioned above, no wear can occur. And the higher flow rate of thinner oil, supplies more oil volume to the main and rod bearings, which also helps ensure that the critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge is always maintained.

Thinner oil will of course flow out from the bearing clearances quicker than thicker oil will. But, by making sure there is sufficient oil pressure as mentioned above, the oil supply will always stay ahead of the oil flowing out, which will maintain that critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge.

• Oil flow is what carries heat away from internal engine components. Those engine components are DIRECTLY oil cooled, but only INdirectly water cooled. And better flowing thinner oil will keep critical engine components cooler because it carries heat away faster than slower flowing thicker oil can. This is especially important with plain main and rod bearings, since the flow of oil through the bearings is what cools them. If you run thicker oil than needed, you will drive up engine component temps.

Here are some comparison numbers from an 830 HP road race engine on the track:

15W50 oil = 80 psi = 265* oil sump temperature

5W20 oil = 65 psi = 240* oil sump temperature

Here you can see how the thicker oil flowed more slowly through the bearings, thus getting hotter, driving up bearing temperatures and increasing sump temperatures. And the thinner oil flowed more freely and quickly through the bearings, thus cooling and lubricating them better than thicker oil, while also reducing sump temperatures.

Here’s some additional background on all this – You might be surprised by how much heat can be generated just from an oil’s internal friction, though friction may not the best term to use here. It is probably better to think of this as the heat generated due to the shearing action taking place within the oil.

It is the shearing action of the oil between the crankshaft and bearings, while the engine is under a heavy loading condition, that generates the bearing heat that we are concerned with. The oil wedge formed as the crankshaft pulls oil in and around the clearance as it spins, is liquid oil. And since liquids cannot be compressed, the oil wedge itself is what carries that heavy engine loading (oil pressure serves only to deliver oil to the crank/bearing interface) and prevents the crankshaft and bearings from coming in contact with each other, once the engine is running. Cold start up after sitting, is when the bearings and cranksaft start out in contact with each other.

The difference in flow rate, and the difference in shearing generated heat, is why the viscosity used, makes a difference in bearing and sump temperatures. Thicker oil which flows more slowly and generates more heat from shearing, it is not carrying heat away and cooling the bearings as well or as quickly as it could, so that drives up bearing temps. This in turn, causes hotter oil to be coming out of the bearings and into the sump, which is why we see higher temps on a gauge. That is the opposite of what we want.

On the other hand, quicker flowing thinner oil, not only generates less heat from shearing, but it also carries heat away much quicker, keeping bearing temps down. And this means the oil coming out from the bearings, and going into the sump, is also cooler. And that is why we see the cooler sump temps. This is precisely what we saw with the road race engine example above.

If an engine is running hot, use a thinner oil to increase flow, increase internal component cooling, and help keep sump temperatures down. Keeping oil temps down is important to help keep oil below the threshold of thermal breakdown.

• Thinner oil will typically increase HP because of less viscous drag and reduced pumping losses, compared to thicker oils. That is why very serious Race efforts will generally use watery thin oils in their engines. But, an exception to this increase in HP would be in high rpm hydraulic lifter pushrod engines, where thinner oil can allow the lifters to malfunction at very high rpm. In everyday street vehicles, where fuel consumption is a consideration, thinner oils will also typically increase fuel economy. The majority of new cars sold in the U.S. now call for 5W20 specifically for increased fuel economy. And now Diesel trucks are increasingly calling for 5W30, also for fuel economy improvement.

• Relatively few engines are built with loose enough bearing clearances, to ever need to run oil thicker than a multi-viscosity 30 weight (though some may need a high volume oil pump). The lower the first number cold viscosity rating, the better the cold flow. For example, 0W30 flows WAY better cold than 20W50. And 0W30 flows WAY better cold than straight 30wt, which is horrible for cold start-up flow and should be avoided at all cost. And the lower the second number hot viscosity rating, the better the hot flow. For example, hot 0W30 flows WAY better hot than 20W50.

* The churning action of rotating and reciprocating internal engine components, along with oil spraying out from between pressurized components, traditional oil pumps with their old-tech spur gear design, old tech oil pressure relief valves, and overall windage, all contribute in varying degrees,  to causing the engine oil to become aerated, which is exhibited by air bubbles/foam in the oil. Air bubble-filled foamy oil, is what typically causes engines running on a dyno to experience oil pressure drops, assuming they have acceptable oil drain-back from the top end, and are keeping the oil pump pickup submerged. Also, air bubble-filled foamy oil, is what typically causes engines being run hard in cars, to experience drops in oil pressure, assuming the oil pump pickup is still submerged in oil. And if that isn’t bad enough, air bubble-filled, foamy oil cannot lubricate critical internal components properly. For proper lubrication of critical components, you need incompressible “liquid” oil, NOT compressible air bubble-filled foamy oil.

This is an issue to take very seriously, if you want to provide your engine with the best possible lubrication protection. If this aerated oil issue is bad enough, it can cause wear, damage or outright engine failure. And it can be extremely difficult to diagnose, in the event of an outright engine failure. Because when you take the engine apart for examination, you typically can’t find anything wrong at all, other than say the rod and/or main bearings that failed. That’s because the air bubbles/foam are long gone by then.

You can’t do much about the churning action of rotating and reciprocating internal engine components, nor can you do much about the oil spraying out from between pressurized components. Though you can try to reduce windage problems by selecting the best oil pan designs. You can also select a superior smoother flowing gerotor oil pump design with its internal bypass relief valve. But, the one thing that is the easiest to change to reduce engine oil aeration concerns, is to choose the proper engine oil viscosity.

Heavy thick oils such as 5W50 and 20W50, that are of course 50 weight oils at normal operating temperature, are slower to release and eliminate air bubbles/foam, than thinner oils such as 5W30 and 10W30 that are 30 weight oils at normal operating temperature. Motor oils do of course contain anti-foaming agents to help control (though not altogether eliminate) air bubbles/foam. But, the air bubbles that will still be present in the oil anyway, have to travel through the oil to be released. And thicker heavier oils slow down that process, leaving compromised lubrication. Adding aftermarket oil treatments that thicken the oil more, makes aeration issues even worse, by causing further slowing of air bubble release. Data on this is not widely published, so I have future testing planned that will provide much needed test data on this subject. But in the meantime, keep in mind that thinner oils such as 5W30 and 10W30, allow air bubbles to travel through the oil and be released quicker, making them a better viscosity choice to fight motor oil aeration issues, and provide the best possible lubrication protection for your engine.

• Thicker oils DO NOT automatically provide better wear protection than thinner oils, as some people mistakenly believe. Extensive “dynamic wear testing under load” of approximately 200 motor oils, has shown that the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the primary emphasis on the additive package, which is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, is what determines an oil’s wear protection capability, NOT its viscosity. In fact, the test data has shown that 5W20 oils can provide INCREDIBLE wear protection with over 120,000 psi load carrying capability/film strength/shear resistance, while 15W50 oils can sometimes only provide UNDESIRABLE wear protection with less than 60,000 psi. So, DO NOT use thicker oil under the assumption that it can provide better wear protection for our engines, because that is simply NOT TRUE.
.

BOTTOM LINE: Thinner oils are better for most engine lubrication needs.
.

• But, the “specific” viscosity selected for any given engine, is very important. Engine build differences and engine wear differences, result in different clearances. And depending on how robust an oiling system is, different clearances can require different motor oil viscosities for engines to generate acceptable oil pressure. The looser the clearances, the faster a given motor oil viscosity will bleed off through those clearances. Or the thinner the viscosity, the faster the oil will bleed off through given clearances. So, we need sufficient oil pressure to ensure that an adequate oil supply is always present at critical components, to protect an engine from wear and/or damage.
.
And having various motor oil viscosities available, allows us to select the correct oil for any given engine, no matter what its clearances may be. To automatically take into account all the possible variations, I recommend using the thinnest oil that will still maintain acceptable “HOT” oil pressure. And that viscosity requirement can vary from engine to engine, because of differences in clearances.
.
In addition to that, the viscosity chosen may also make a difference in mechanical engine noise. Sometimes, an engine might have a little mechanical tick or rattle that isn’t really a problem, other than bothering the owner, which can be eliminated by choosing the next thicker viscosity, than oil pressure requirements alone, may have required. So, viscosity choices can give us options to meet the needs of any given engine.
.
SUMMARY –  MOTOR OIL VISCOSITY SELECTION RECOMMENDATION

To provide an engine with the best “oil film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance” wear protection during cold startup, warm-up, and normal operating temperatures – Select a HIGHLY RANKED motor oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, that has the lowest cold viscosity rating, AND that also has the lowest hot viscosity rating, that will still maintain acceptable “HOT” oil pressure. For properly built engines, a highly ranked 5W30, will usually fulfill those requirements.

NOTE: When I talk about using thinner oil in engines as long as the oil pressure is still acceptable, I am generally referring to gas engines in Hotrods and Race cars, where any thoughts of referring a factory stock engine and its Owner’s Manual, has gone out the window, and where people tend to want to use 20W50 because they MISTAKENLY think it might be better. For those engines, there can be a significant improvement in oiling by using thinner oil than 20W50, as long as the oil pressure is still good. I say that, because a lot of those engines weren’t built with a high volume oil pump, and thin oil with a standard volume oil pump, can be asking for trouble. Thus, my comment about still needing acceptable oil pressure, in order to safely run thin oil in those engines.

Modern factory gasoline engines are already designed for, and call for thinner oils. So, those Owners do NOT need to be concerned about changing to thinner oils. However, the oils called for that are thinner than 5W30 are actually too thin.

And like most things in life, there is an “optimum” motor oil viscosity for most engines. And then there is thinner than optimum, as well as thicker than optimum.

We have already discussed overly thick oils above. As for super thin oils, be aware that 5W20 motor oil came about only to perhaps slightly help improve Auto Makers’ C.A.F.E. (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) numbers. It did NOT come about to actually mechanically help the engines in any way.

Virtually any engine that calls for 5W20, can also safely use 5W30. In fact, engines that call for 5W20 are better protected, and make less mechanical noise with 5W30.

5W30 is really the optimum motor oil viscosity overall, for most water-cooled gasoline engines, including High HP engines. Any viscosity thinner than 5W30, is thinner than optimum. And any viscosity thicker than 5W30 is thicker than optimum.

Since 5W30 is really the best all around motor oil viscosity for most water-cooled gasoline engines, I personally use 5W30 in my own stock engines that call for 5W20. And I also use 5W30 in my own modified High HP engines.

**********

But, traditional Diesel trucks are a different animal. So, for traditional Diesel trucks, I suggest  following the manufacturer’s motor oil viscosity recommendation. However, few people bother to make sure the Diesel oil they use, has every last certification called for in the Owner’s Manual. And I have never seen, nor heard of that ever being a problem. Because engines are just not that sensitive to the oil being used.

Also, if your Diesel truck calls for 15W40 for example, you could use 0W40 or 5W40 Diesel oil instead of 15W40 Diesel oil. Because the 0W40, 5W40 and 15W40 are all rated as 40wt oils at normal operating temperature. And the 0W40 or the 5W40 would flow significantly better when cold, than the 15W40.

For air cooled engines, see Tech Article, “37. Air Cooled engines – Oil viscosity recommendation”.

It is also advisable to select from oils I have recently tested, when possible. Such as those that were tested within the past year or year and a half (more recent tests now include when the testing was performed), to help ensure that what you buy, is the same exact oil I tested. Because the big oil companies change their formulations fairly often. And it is not uncommon for “some” oils to perform worse in their newer formulations, as a result of apparent oil company internal cost reductions, to maintain profits.
.

540 RAT

====================

.

====================

.

SECTION 3 – MOTOR OIL THERMAL BREAKDOWN TEST DATA

Thermal breakdown is the point at which the composition of the oil begins to change due to the temperature it’s exposed to.

.

The “Official” test for this is called the NOACK Volatility Test. In this test, per the ASTM spec, the oil is heated to 250*C (482*F) for one hour. The lighter oil fractions will vaporize, leaving thicker and heavier oil, contributing to poor circulation, reduced fuel economy, increased oil consumption, increased wear and increased emissions.

.

The test reports results in the percentage, by weight, lost due to “volatilization.” Before July 1, 2001, 5W-30 motor oil in the United States could lose up to 22 percent of its weight and still be regarded as “passable.” Now, with GF-4, the maximum NOACK volatility for API licensing is 15 percent. European standards limit high quality oils to a maximum of 13 percent loss.

.
This of course means that any motor oil that has been heated above its onset of thermal breakdown point, has started to deteriorate. So, reasonable oil change intervals should be followed. See Tech Article, “25. Recommended Oil Change Interval”, for more details.

.

To find out how an assortment of oils actually perform in the real world, I heated the following oils, and below are the approximate temperatures (rounded to the nearest 5* increment) at which each oil started to “vaporize” (which looks like smoke to the casual observer, even though the oil is NOT actually burning), which indicated the onset of thermal breakdown:

SYNTHETIC GASOLINE ENGINE OILS:

10W30 Amsoil Dominator Racing Oil, synthetic = 300* F

10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil, synthetic = 300* F

5W30 Pennzoil Ultra Platinum, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic = 290*F (high temp tested late 2015)

5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic = 290* F

0W30 Mobil 1, API SN, Advanced Fuel Economy, synthetic = 290* F

0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SL, European Formula, synthetic, made in Germany and sold in the U.S. = 290* F

0W40 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SN, European Formula, synthetic, made in Belgium and sold in the U.S. = 290* F

10W30 Lucas Racing Only, synthetic = 290* F

5W50 Mobil 1, API SN, synthetic = 290*F

5W30 Motul 300V, Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic = 285* F

0W40 Mobil 1, API SN, European Formula, synthetic, made in the U.S. = 285* F

5W30 Royal Purple XPR, synthetic = 285* F

5W30 Mobil Super Synthetic, API SN = 285*F

10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil, synthetic = 280* F

5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM, synthetic = 280* F

5W20 Castrol Edge w/Titanium, API SN, synthetic = 280* F

0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 280* F

5W50 Motorcraft, API SN, synthetic = 275* F

5W20 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic = 270*F (tested late 2015)

0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 270* F

5W30 Mobil 1 Advanced Full Synthetic, API SN = 265* F (this is an earlier version without GM dexos 1 approval)

5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic = 260*F (tested late 2015)

0W40 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN, synthetic = 260* F

5W30 Mobil 1, Advanced Full Synthetic, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved = 255*F (this was the latest current version when tested late 2015)

5W30 Oil Extreme Motor Oil, API SM, synthetic = 255* F

5W30 PurOl Elite Series, synthetic = 255*F

0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 210* F, and this is NOT a typo

.

SEMI-SYNTHETIC GASOLINE ENGINE OILS:

0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, semi-synthetic = 280* F

5W30 Castrol GTX Magnatec, synthetic blend = 260*F

5W30 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic blend = 250*F (tested late 2015)

10W30 Renegade Pro Series Racing Oil, synthetic blend = 250* F

10W40 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage, API SN, synthetic blend = 240*F (tested late 2015)

.

CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE ENGINE OILS:

5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional= 280* F

20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN, conventional = 275* F

10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil, silver bottle = 260* F

5W30 Chevron Supreme, API SN, conventional, blue bottle = 255*F

Here are the “averages” for the onset of thermal breakdown of these GASOLINE ENGINE oils:

The 27 Full synthetic oils = 276* F

The 5 Semi-synthetic oils = 256* F

The 4 Conventional dino oils = 268* F

The average value for the onset of thermal breakdown for all 33 gasoline engine oils combined = 273* F.

.

As you can see by looking at the average value for each oil type above, there was only a 10* difference between the average of the conventional oils and the average of the full synthetic oils. So, the real world observation here does NOT support common internet motor oil info claims about synthetic oils in general, having an unbelievable outrageously high temperature capability compared to other less expensive conventional oils. The fact is, the test data here shows that, while there are some significant individual differences, synthetic and conventional oils overall, are rather close in thermal capability. This means that conventional oils are still far better than most people think.

.
**************************************************************

.
SYNTHETIC DIESEL OILS:

RED LINE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF-4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O = 285* F

5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil synthetic = 280* F

MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4 and ACEA  E7 = 270* F

5W40 Amsoil Premium Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CF, SN, SM, ACEA E7, E9 = 265* F

ROYAL PURPLE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4 /SM, CI-4 PLUS, CH-4, CI-4
= 265* F

SHELL ROTELLA T6, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4/SM = 260* F

CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, SL, SM = 255* F

.

CONVENTIONAL DIESEL OILS:

CASTROL GTX DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4/SN = 265* F

CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, SM, SL = 265* F

FARM RATED 15W40 Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, conventional, API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ = 255* F

VALVOLINE PREMIUM BLUE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SM = 255* F

MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4/SM, SL  = 250* F

LUCAS 15W40 MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SL = 250* F

“NEW” SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4,CF/SM  = 250* F

“OLD” SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH = 250* F

Swepco 306 Supreme Forumula Engine Oil, 15W40 conventional, API CI-4/SL, CF-2 = 250*F
Here are the “averages” for the onset of thermal breakdown of these DIESEL oils:

The 7 full synthetic oils = 269* F

The 9 conventional oils = 254* F

The average value for the onset of thermal breakdown for all 16 Diesel oils combined = 261* F, which is 13* “LOWER” than the average of all 33 gasoline engine oils combined. That makes Diesel oils a poor choice for high performance gasoline engines, in terms of thermal breakdown capability.
.
NOTE: Motor oils do NOT stop working the instant they reach their onset of thermal breakdown point. However, it is not a good idea to run oil above its thermal breakdown point for extended periods of time. Because that will degrade its capability more and more as time/mileage goes on.

540 RAT

.

====================

.

====================

.

SECTION 4 – COMPONENT QUANTITY LAB TEST RESULTS

.
All the component quantity Lab test results shown below, were taken from brand new, thoroughly shaken bottles of oil. And all tests were performed at ALS Tribology, in Sparks, Nevada. Having all the oils tested by the same Lab, makes this the most consistent and reliable information you will ever find, for this many oil to oil comparisons.

Most motor oils contain more zinc than phosphorus, but that is not always the case. A good percentage of motor oils are formulated to contain more phosphorus than zinc. It just depends on what the Chemical Engineers decided they needed for any particular oil. So, you will find some oils below that show more phosphorus than zinc. And those values are correct, they are NOT typos.

.
If you’ve read Section 1 – Motor Oil “Wear Protection” Ranking List, of this Blog, you know that the amount of zinc/phos, does NOT determine an oil’s wear protection capability. Because it is physically impossible for more zinc/phos to provide more wear protection. Zinc/phos does NOT work that way. More zinc/phos simply takes longer to become depleted, since there was more to begin with. It is much like the way more gas in your tank will take longer to run out, but more gas in your tank will NOT make more power.

But, many people incorrectly believe you need high levels of zinc/phos for adequate wear protection in High Performance engines, simply because they have always been told that, read that or heard that. Amazingly, they’ve blindly accepted that notion with NO PROOF what so ever. And unfortunately for them, that line of thinking is nothing more than an old wives’ tale MYTH that took on a life of its own, because it kept being repeated over and over for years and years. But, repeating wrong folklore over and over, does NOT make it magically become true.

Engineering tests have BUSTED that old high zinc/phos myth. And that test data has PROVEN beyond any doubt, that the idea of all high zinc/phos oils providing adequate wear protection, is simply NOT TRUE. The fact is, some high zinc/phos oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc/phos oils provide poor wear protection. And you simply CANNOT tell from an oil’s Lab print out, which one is which, just by looking at the amount of zinc/phos.

However, some people just can’t accept that they have been off-track all these years about zinc/phos, and choose to ignore the Engineering test data FACTS. Sadly, they insist on clinging to their old false beliefs about needing high levels of zinc/phos, and in so doing, they are putting their engine, and by extension, the engines of others, at risk for no good reason.

Also, some high zinc/phos believers even get emotional and nasty about all this. But, they can never back-up anything they say with actual facts. And no amount of hostility or verbal attacks, will change the Engineering FACTS. Engineering does NOT work that way. My Engineering testing does not involve pre-conceived notions or emotion. It is all performed Professionally, and I report the results just as they are determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved, good or bad. In other words, I back-up everything I say with hard FACTUAL test data.

This is the 21st Century, and we now have correct Engineering test data FACTS available, so that we can finally make informed decisions about motor oil selection, that was not available before. Technology marches on. People can embrace it, and make use of it to their advantage, or they can be left behind to continue making poor motor oil choices.

In fact, incorrect choices of poor performing high zinc/phos motor oils, is the primary reason why flat tappet wiped lobes are still a problem, whether during break-in or after. But, choosing a high performing motor oil from my Motor Oil Wear Protection “Ranking List”, which is based on oil film strength load carrying capability, rather than on the amount of zinc/phos, can make wiped lobes and complicated break-in procedures a thing of the past.

.
In addition to that, not only are high levels of zinc/phos no guarantee of providing sufficient wear protection, but too much zinc/phos can actually DAMAGE your engine. Oil industry testing has found that motor oils with more than 1,400 ppm ZDDP, INCREASED long-term wear. And it was also found that motor oils with more than 2,000 ppm ZDDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling. The ZDDP value is the average of the zinc and phosphorus values, rounded to the next lowest 100 ppm increment.

.
This by Brad Penn:
“There is such a thing as too much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will “tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection. Only so much is utilized. We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP. “

The use of zinc/phosphorus as the “primary” extreme pressure anti-wear components is outdated technology. Still, even the best modern low zinc/phos oils still use a some zinc/phos, but they are used only as a “portion” of the extreme pressure anti-wear components, that make up the overall additive package. And other modern “proprietary” extreme pressure anti-wear components, which are superior to zinc/phos, and can vary from Company to Company, are used as the “primary” extreme pressure anti-wear components. But, we don’t see those components in a normal Lab test print out, because they are proprietary, so the Lab is not specifically looking for them.

So, what all this means is that the amount of zinc/phos on an oil’s Lab print out will NOT help you choose an oil that will provide the excellent wear protection you desire. As mentioned above, the only way to find out how well an oil truly provides wear protection, is to look at an oil’s film strength load carrying capability. And you can find that information in this Blog, in Section 1 – Motor Oil “Wear Protection” Ranking List.

However, you can make use of an oil’s Lab print out on zinc/phos levels to see which oils have too much zinc/phos and can actually “damage” an engine. As indicated above, for “long-term higher mileage” usage, it is best to avoid oils that have more than 1,400 ppm ZDDP. For limited use Hotrods and Race Cars, it is best to avoid oils that have more than 2,000 ppm ZDDP.

.
Also, looking at an oil’s Lab print out values for “detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge” and TBN, can be very useful. It these values are comparable to the values of typical normal street oils, that means you can use normal oil change intervals. But, if those values are significantly lower than for typical normal street oils, then shorter change intervals are required because those components will become depleted sooner.

.
Over time, as mileage accumulates on any motor oil, the additive package components become more and more depleted as they are used up. That, along with the oil becoming dark, dirty and contaminated, is why changing oil at reasonable intervals is important.

.
So, to find out just how much the component quantities are reduced as mileage accumulates, I also sent the Lab about a dozen used oils, both synthetic and conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. The most noteworthy component quantity depletions among those used oils  were:

.
• The zinc levels dropped by around 25% on average, over 5,000 miles. But, even with significantly reduced zinc levels, there was no reduction in the original oil film strength load carrying capability. So, that is further PROOF that the zinc level is not tied to the wear protection level.

• The TBN values dropped by about 4 points on average, over 5,000 miles.

.
Only “brand new oil” component quantities are shown below, and they are listed in the following order:

.
1. Gasoline Engine Oil

2. Break-In Oil

3. Diesel Oil

.
*************************

GASOLINE ENGINE OIL

.

15W50 Aeroshell W, Piston Aircraft engine oil, semi-synthetic (lab tested late 2017)
Silicon = 7 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = < 5 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = < 1 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 5 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = < 1 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 2 ppm (anti-wear)
Phosphorus = 1286 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = < 1 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = < 1 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = < 1 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 2.6 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most automotive gasoline engine oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 18.8 (cSt range for SAE 50 is 16.3 to 21.8)
Viscosity (cSt at 40*C) = 143.1, and cSt (centistokes) represents an oil’s thickness.

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

Amsoil  0W30  Signature Series (25,000 miles) synthetic (lab tested 2011)
This one does NOT have the API symbol, but its text says it’s recommended for API  SN 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 = 191 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 18 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3354 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 1 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 824 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 960 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 161 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 1 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 11.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
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.

.

Even though extended drain intervals are not really in the best interest of any engine, because motor oil is typically dark, dirty, contaminated and in need of changing by 5,000 miles, for those who absolutely insist on extended drain intervals, this may be one of the best oils for that. Because it has a lot of extra detergent and acid neutralizer (TBN), so that there is a lot of reserve to draw from as these become depleted over time.

.

As a comparison, Mobil 1 Extended Performance (15,000 miles), looks rather poor for extended drain intervals when compared to this Amsoil product. This Amsoil motor oil has over twice as much detergent, and 44% more TBN than Mobil 1 Extended Performance (15,000).

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

Amsoil 10W30 Dominator Racing Oil synthetic (lab tested 2013)
Silicon = 3 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 15 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 10 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1661 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1613 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1394 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 6.5 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.6 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*******************

Amsoil  10W30  Z- Rod Oil synthetic ( lab tested 2011)
This one does NOT have the API symbol, but its text says it’s recommended for API  SL and earlier applications.
Silicon = 4 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 11 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2908 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1431 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1441 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 52 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.3 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.6 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

Brad Penn 0W30 Penn Grade 1 High Performance Oil partial synthetic (lab tested 2011)
This oil is from Bradford, Pennsylvania, thus the name Brad Penn.
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 = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 13 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2922 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1621 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1437 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 2 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.7 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
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.
***************************

Brad Penn 10W30 Penn Grade 1 High Performance Oil partial synthetic (lab tested 2011)
This oil is from Bradford, Pennsylvania, thus the name Brad Penn.
Silicon = 9 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 646 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2518 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 5 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1557 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1651 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 3 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 5 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 450 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.7 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.3 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
**********************

Castrol 5W20 Edge with Titanium API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 7 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 54 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 1236 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 662 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1042 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 857 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 100 ppm (anti-wear)
Titanium = 49 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 2 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 9.5 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 9.1 (cSt range for SAE 20 is 5.6 to 9.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
***************

Castrol 5W30 Edge with Titanium API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 4 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 55 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 1176 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 577 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 2 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 818 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 883 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 90 ppm (anti-wear)
Titanium = 44 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 10.1 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.6 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
********************

Castrol 5W30 Edge API SM synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 5 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 57 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 14 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3206 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 955 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 799 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 149 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 10.1 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 9.7 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
********************************

Castrol 5W30 GTX, API SN conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 11 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 6 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 8 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2634 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 830 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 791 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 1 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 6 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 139 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 6.2 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.7 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

Castrol 5W30 GTX API SM conventional (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 8 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2969 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 888 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 873 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 8 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 114 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.5 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.4 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
***********************

Castrol 30wt Heavy Duty, API SM conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 7 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 112 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2682 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 907 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 829 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 56 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 8 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.3 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 12.1 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
********************************

5W50 Castrol Edge w/Syntec API SN synthetic (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 5 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 47 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 1037 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 459 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1252 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1197 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 71 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 9.5 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 17.7 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
**************************

Castrol 20W50 GTX API SN conventional oil (lab tested 2012)
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 = 125 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 11 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2463 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 610 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 754 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 64 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 14 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.1 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 17.5 (cSt range for SAE 50 is 16.3 to 21.8) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

Chevron Supreme 5W30 API SN conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 5 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 82 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 8 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2715 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1018 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 728 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 161 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 8 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.5 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.3 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

Comp Cams 10W30 Muscle Car & Street Rod Oil synthetic blend (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 1 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 12 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2803 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1673 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1114 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 67 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.7 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.8 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*********************

Edelbrock 5W30 Cat Safe API SM synthetic (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 1 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 57 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 13 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2565 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 924 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 659 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 28 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 5 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.4 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

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

Edelbrock 10W40 synthetic (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 0 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 854 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 27 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1193 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1146 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 121 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 5 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 6.0 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 14.5 (cSt range for SAE 40 is 12.5 to 16.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

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

GM’s 5W30 AC Delco dexos 1, API SN semi-synthetic (lab tested 2012)
This oil is made by ExxonMobil.
Silicon = 0 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 218 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2260 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 878 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 758 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 72 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 6.7 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.2 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic (lab tested 2014)

The bottle says it is formulated specifically for high output GM LS engines, and that no ZDDP or additives are required.
Silicon = 7 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 257 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3515 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1610 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1496 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 12 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.8 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
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.

.
This oil contains sufficient amounts of the components required (detergent, acid neutralizer, etc) for normal change intervals in street driven vehicles. But, it has way too much zinc/phos for use in cat equipped vehicles. However, it is well suited for Race Cars, Street Hotrods and Classic cars.

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

.
Joe Gibbs 10W30 HR- 4 Hot Rod Oil synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 4 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 6 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 164 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2964 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1247 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1137 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 24 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 2 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 9.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.6 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
***************************

Joe Gibbs 10W30  XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil synthetic (lab tested 2011)
NOTE: Some of the numbers here were so unusual and unexpected, that I had the lab re-test the oil sample on another day, after other oil tests showed normal results, just to ensure that the original test was valid. And the re –test came back with the exact same numbers. So, the numbers are what they are. We know this line of oil works very well, because it was developed for, and is used by, winning NASCAR Cup teams.

.
Silicon = 4 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 259 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 1 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 356 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 743 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 802 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 1125 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 5 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 5 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 1.8 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 12.2 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

.
The detergent and TBN levels are so very low here, that this oil should most likely be changed after every outing, before those components are totally exhausted.
********************

Kendall 20W50 GT-1 High Performance with liquid Titanium, API SN conventional (lab tested 2012)
This oil is made by ConocoPhillips.
Silicon = 4 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 188 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2606 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 991 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1253 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 57 ppm (anti-wear)
Titanium = 84 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.2 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 18.2 (cSt range for SAE 50 is 16.3 to 21.8) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

5W30 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil API SL synthetic (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 4 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 667 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 735 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1765 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 2468 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 339 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 341 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.0 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 9.3 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

5W30 LAT Synethic Racing Oil API SM (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 3 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 143 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1516 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1784 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1539 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 598 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.3 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.0 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

Lucas 5W30 API SN conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 11 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 8 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2607 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 992 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 760 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 14 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 423 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 6.7 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.9 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

Lucas 5W30 API SM synthetic (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 4 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2711 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1134 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 666 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 406 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 6.3 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.4 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
******************

Lucas 10W30 Racing Only synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 18 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 1 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2929 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 2642 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 3489 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 1764 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 9 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 9.0 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.5 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

.
The ZDDP values are so extremely high here, that this oil really is only suited for short life dedicated racing engines, as the name implies. Using zinc/phos levels this high in other engines could be cause for concern, since excessively high levels can “cause” engine damage rather than “prevent” it.

**********************
Lucas 10W30  Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 5 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 7 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2891 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 2116 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1855 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 871 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 9.2 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.8 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

.
5W30 Maxima RS530 Synthetic Racing Oil synthetic (lab tested 2012)
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 = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 735 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 820 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 2162 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 2294 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 181 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 366 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 9.3 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

************************
0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil (lab tested 2013)
Silicon = 7 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 74 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 14 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1938 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1952 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1671 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 1743 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 1 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.2 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 6.1 And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

*****************
0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil (lab tested 2013)
Silicon = 17 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 67 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 13 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1823 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 10 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1693 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1667 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 1326 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 1 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.0 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.3 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
********************

0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil (lab tested 2013)
Silicon = 8 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 74 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 212 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1694 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1676 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1637 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 1263 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 17.6 (cSt range for SAE 50 is 16.3 to 21.8) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

************************
Mobil 1 0W20 Advanced Fuel Economy API SN synthetic (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 5 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 81 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 631 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 820 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 742 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 677 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 81 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.6 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 8.9 (cSt range for SAE 20 is 5.6 to 9.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

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

.
Mobil 1 5W20 API SN synthetic (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 5 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 79 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 554 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 781 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 764 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 698 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 76 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 7 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 1 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.6 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 9.2 (cSt range for SAE 20 is 5.6 to 9.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

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

Mobil 1 5W30 Extended Performance (15,000 miles) API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 5 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 89 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 666 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 942 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 890 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 819 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 104 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.9 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
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.

.
The detergent, anti-wear and TBN components of this Extended Performance oil are either about average or below average for typical API SN oils (even though some of the components are a little higher than in its standard Mobil 1 counterpart). TBN eventually becomes depleted as miles accumulate on oil in service. That’s “one” of the primary reasons for changing oil in the first place, to replenish the exhausted additive package. And it is not unusual for a TBN value to drop by about 4 points per 5,000 miles. So, with this oil starting out with a fairly low TBN value to begin with, it would seem very unlikely it could ever go a whopping 15,000 miles without having the TBN totally depleted well before reaching that 15,000 mile mark. So, this extended mileage claim appears to be only an unsupported marketing gimmick.

.
But, for those interested in long drain intervals, I’d suggest sending in a sample of this oil and having it lab tested at about the half way mark of 7,500 miles to see how much, if any, TBN remains. But, of course motor oil is typically already dark, dirty, contaminated and in need of changing by 5,000 miles anyway.

************************
Mobil 1 5W30 API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 8 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, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 603 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 799 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 801 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 842 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 112 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 6 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.5 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.5 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*****************************

Mobil 1  15W50 API SN full synthetic oil (lab tested 2012)
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 = 84 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 556 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 791 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1133 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1168 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 83 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 2 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.1 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 18.3 (cSt range for SAE 50 is 16.3 to 21.8) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
***********************

Motorcraft 5W30 API SN full synthetic oil (lab tested 2012)
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 = 188 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2030 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 796 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 830 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 75 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 2 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.0 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.1 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
******************************

Motorcraft 5W50 API SN full synthetic oil (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 5 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 282 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 8 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1710 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 606 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 742 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 28 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 2 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 6.7 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 19.4 (cSt range for SAE 50 is 16.3 to 21.8) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
************************

5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic (lab tested 2014)

This Motorcycle Road Racing oil is from France and comes in liter bottles (slightly more than a quart). At the time this oil was tested in spring 2014, it cost $24.25 per bottle. And with the shipping cost added to that, the final cost was about $33.00 per bottle (shipping was all inside the U.S.), making it THE most expensive motor oil I’ve ever tested.
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 = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 17 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3141 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1724 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1547 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 481 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 3 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.2 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

.
This oil contains sufficient amounts of the components required (detergent, acid neutralizer, etc) for normal change intervals in street driven vehicles. But, it has way too much zinc/phos for use in cat equipped vehicles. However, it is well suited for Race Cars, Street Hotrods and Classic cars.
*************************

5W30 Oil Extreme API SM synthetic (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 = 87 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 52 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 7652 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
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 is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
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
*****************

O’Reilly 5W30 (house brand) API SN conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 4 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 7 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2556 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 853 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 816 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 9 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 422 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 5.5 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.4 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

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

Pennzoil 5W30 Ultra API SM synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 3 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 363 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 13 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3011 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 806 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 812 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 66 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 10.3 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.8 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

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

Pennzoil 5W30, API SN conventional, yellow bottle (lab tested 2013)
Silicon = 3 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 102 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 8 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1881 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 839 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 840 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 267 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.9 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.7 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

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

Quaker State 5W30 Ultimate Durability API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 3 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 10 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2831 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 877 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 921 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 72 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.9 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
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.

.
NOTE: This bottle’s plastic was so paper thin and flimsy, that just gripping the bottle with the cap off, squeezed oil up, out and all over the place. So, use extra care with this one.

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

Quaker State 10W30 Defy, API SL synthetic blend (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 3 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 170 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 8 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2652 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1221 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 955 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 99 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 6.5 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.7 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness
*****************************

Redline 30wt Race Oil synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 23 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 70 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1982 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 3 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 2207 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 2052 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 1235 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 20 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 5.0 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 9.9 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

.
These ZDDP values are high enough here, that this oil really is only suited for short life dedicated racing engines, as the name implies. Using zinc/phos levels this high in other engines could be cause for concern, since excessively high levels, can “cause” engine damage rather than “prevent” it.

.
The very low TBN value in this Redline oil is also consistent with short term use only.

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

Royal Purple 5W20 API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 2 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2862 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 964 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 892 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 267 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.7 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 8.7 (cSt range for SAE 20 is 5.6 to 9.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
**********************

Royal Purple 5W30 API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 3 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 8 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2822 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 942 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 817 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 6 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 424 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.7 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.3 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

********************
Royal Purple 5W30 XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) synthetic (lab tested 2008)
Silicon = 4 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 1 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 10 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3039 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1421 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1338 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 204 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 10.9 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.6 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

Royal Purple 5W30 API SL synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 9 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 15 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 1192 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2745 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1179 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 985 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 211 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 11.0 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.7 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
***********************

Royal Purple 10W30 HPS (High Performance Street) synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 7 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 46 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3626 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1774 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1347 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 189 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 11 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 2 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 10.2 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.3 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

Royal Purple 20W50 API SN full synthetic oil (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 4 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 10 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2530 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 588 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 697 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 12 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 120 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.8 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 19.5 (cSt range for SAE 50 is 16.3 to 21.8) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

Summit 10W40 Premium Racing Oil, API SL (lab tested 2013)
Silicon = 1 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 77 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 6 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1338 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1764 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1974 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 41 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 6.8 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 14.2 (cSt range for SAE 40 is 12.5 to 16.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*************************

.
Torco 10W40 TR-1 Racing Oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 2 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 10 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 917 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 44 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1456 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1150 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 227 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 6.3 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 15.4 (cSt range for SAE 40 is 12.5 to 16.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

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

Valvoline 5W20 SynPower API SN synthetic (lab tested 2012)
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 = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2781 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1045 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 742 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 8 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 386 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 6.9 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 8.5 (cSt range for SAE 20 is 5.6 to 9.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
***********************

Valvoline 5W30 SYNPower API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 5 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 19 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2605 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 969 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 761 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 11 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 205 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.1 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
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.
**********************

Valvoline 5W30 NextGen 50% Recycled Oil, API SN conventional (lab tested 2013)
Silicon = 4 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 7 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1861 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 947 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 778 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 398 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 5.8 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
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.

.
The TBN value in this new oil, is as low as some used oils have at 5,000 miles. So, this oil might barely make it to 5,000 miles, without the TBN being depleted.
*******************

Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) 10W30 Conventional Racing Oil (lab tested 2011)
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 = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 5 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1607 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 2 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1669 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1518 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 784 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 7 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 190 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 4.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 9.8 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

.
The very low TBN value in this NSL oil would require increased oil change frequency, to avoid acid build-up. And Valvoline has said that their NSL oils should be changed at least every 500 miles.

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

.
Valvoline VR1  10W30 Racing Oil  conventional (Silver Bottle, lab tested 2011)
This one does NOT have the API symbol, but its text says it exceeds API SM
Silicon = 10 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 73 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2707 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 3 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1472 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1544 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 3 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 6 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 380 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.6 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.0 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
*********************

Valvoline VR1  10W30 “SYNTHETIC” Racing Oil API SL (Black Bottle, lab tested 2011)
Silicon = 8 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 15 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2664 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1180 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1112 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 162 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 5 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 195 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.4 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
************************

Valvoline 10W40 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil API SJ conventional (lab tested 2008)
Silicon = 20 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 137 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 13 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1849 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1154 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1075 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 126 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.1 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 14.6 (cSt range for SAE 40 is 12.5 to 16.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

.
=================================================================
=================================================================

.
BREAK-IN OIL

.
Amsoil 30wt Break-In Oil conventional (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 = 15 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1587 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 2051 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1917 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 6.5 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.4 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
******************

Comp Cams 10W30 Break-in Oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 4 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 22 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 4208 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 3004 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 2613 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 180 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 2 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 14.7 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.7 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
**************************

Edelbrock 30wt Break-in Oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
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 = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 46 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3402 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1545 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1465 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 4 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 8 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 10.6 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.8 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
**************************

.
Lucas 30wt  Break-in Oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 15 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 1 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1099 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 4483 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 3660 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 3 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 5.9 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.9 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
******************

Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 5 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 411 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2769 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1170 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1039 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 5 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 9.8 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 12.1 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

.
=================================================================
=================================================================

DIESEL OIL

.
Chevron 15W40 Delo 400 LE Diesel Oil API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM, conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 5 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 393 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 346 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1466 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1519 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1139 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 80 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 6 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 5 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.0 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 15.4 (cSt range for SAE 40 is 12.5 to 16.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
********************************

Farm Rated 15W40 Heavy Duty Performance Diesel Oil, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ conventional (lab tested 2012)
This oil is made by CITGO Petroleum Corp.
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 = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 677 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 912 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1325 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1234 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 2 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 3 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 9.3 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 15.1 (cSt range for SAE 40 is 12.5 to 16.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
********************************

Lucas 15W40 Magnum Diesel Oil API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SL, conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 9 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 10 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3374 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1441 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1234 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 76 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 11.7 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 14.4 (cSt range for SAE 40 is 12.5 to 16.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
********************************

Mobil 1 5W40  Turbo Diesel Truck Oil API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4 and ACEA, synthetic (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 2 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 77 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 654 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 865 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1211 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1168 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 2 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 2 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 9.3 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 14.3 (cSt range for SAE 40 is 12.5 to 16.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
********************************

Mobil 15W40 Delvac 1300 Super Diesel Oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
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 = 47 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 756 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 1040 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1297 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 944 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 46 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 15 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 9.8 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 14.5 (cSt range for SAE 40 is 12.5 to 16.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
********************************

Redline 15W40 Diesel Oil API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF-4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O, synthetic (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 20 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2986 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1615 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1551 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 173 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.3 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 13.4 (cSt range for SAE 40 is 12.5 to 16.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
********************************

“NEW” 15W40 Shell Rotella T Diesel Oil API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4, CF/SM,  conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 3 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 29 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2848 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1454 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1062 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 14 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 6 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 9.1 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 15.0 (cSt range for SAE 40 is 12.5 to 16.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
********************************

“OLD” 15W40 Shell Rotella T Diesel Oil API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 3 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 29 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 6 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2680 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1171 ppm (anti-wear) Yes it’s true, the old Rotella actually has LESS zinc than the new Rotella.
Phos = 1186 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 10.1 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 15.3 (cSt range for SAE 40 is 12.5 to 16.2) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

.
====================

.

====================

.

Section 5 – Reserved for future Motor Oil Test Data

.

====================

.

====================

.

Section 6 – DETAILED MOTOR OIL AND MECHANICAL TECH ARTICLES

.
NOTE: Some of the motor oil Articles were written before the most recently tested motor oils were added to the Wear Protection Ranking List in Section 1.

.

1. I-BEAM VS H-BEAM – WHICH CONNECTING ROD IS BEST?

I do NOT sell connecting rods, so I have no vested interest in what rods people choose to use. But, there is so much misinformation, misunderstanding and confusion about connecting rod design, that I’ve put together a brief overview for those who are interested in knowing the Engineering FACTS, rather than relying on the incorrect info that is so common on the Internet and elsewhere.

It is best to avoid H-Beam rods in general, no matter who makes them, and no matter who else uses them. Because as you will see below, an H-Beam rod is never the best choice. They were originally made by someone who “thought” they might be better and/or cheaper to make, without benefit of any Engineering analysis. So, the maker didn’t even know what the H-Beam shortcomings were. Then other makers copied them, and eventually people started to think they must be good because they kept showing up. And because they looked different than stock rods, some figured they must be trick parts that are better.

But, you will only find the H-Beam style being used in the aftermarket Automotive Industry where it is common for companies to create parts without having them designed by actual Degreed Engineers. A lot of the aftermarket companies “just make stuff” without even knowing what they are doing. No competent Degreed Mechanical Engineer would ever design an H-Beam rod, because an H-Beam rod is a textbook case of how NOT to design a connecting rod. So, buyer beware.

A rod’s max compression loads are determined by the amount of HP being made. It’s a simple matter of the higher the HP, the higher compression loading on the rod. And an Engineering “FACT” (NOT opinion or theory) determined by proper buckling and crippling analysis, is that the I-Beam rod design has about twice the strength in compression, compared to a comparable H-Beam rod. So, that makes an I-Beam rod a far better choice for any application, and particularly for those at higher performance levels, such as those making over 1000 HP.

But, a rod’s max tension loads are determined by the mass of the parts involved, the rod length, the stroke length, and the max rpm. That’s it. The max tension loads will never change, no matter if you throw Nitrous, a Turbo, or Blower at it, as long as the short block and redline don’t change. That max tension loading occurs at TDC on the exhaust stroke. And that has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the amount of HP being made. In order to change the max tension loading, you’d have to change the short block configuration and/or the redline. Both types of rods have similar tension capability, since that is only a product of the beams cross-sectional area.

In High Performance engines, connecting rod “compression loading” is ALWAYS considerably higher than the “tension loading”. Here’s an example using an 800HP, 540ci BBC with a 7,000 rpm redline:

Max compression loading on the rod is about 21,000 lbs or 10.5 tons.

Max tension loading is only around 11,000 lbs or 5.5 tons.

So, as you can see in this particular example, the compression loading is about twice as high as the tension loading. But, if the HP increases, the compression loading will also increase. And “THAT IS WHY” a rod’s compression loading capability is important to consider when you are in the market for a new set of rods for a High Performance engine.

An I-Beam rod made from high quality material such as 4340 forged steel will provide plenty of “Margin of Safety” with regard to compression strength. But, a comparable H-Beam rod’s margin of safety can be iffy, and it only gets worse as the HP levels go up. For an H-Beam to catch up to the compression strength of an otherwise comparable I-Beam, the H-Beam would need to be FAR heavier than the lighter, stronger and more efficient I-Beam design. So, by using I-Beam rods, your engine can rev quicker, and you will have the capability to increase the HP later on, without worrying about the rods being strong enough to handle the extra HP.

The superiority of the I-Beam is why it is the structural beam design of choice for countless Professional Engineering applications such as:

• OEM automobile engines, including the Supercharged Corvette
• Aluminum rods (that aren’t a solid rectangular cross section)
• Piston aircraft engines
• High performance high rpm motorcycle engines, which put out way more HP per cubic inch and spin to much higher rpm than most of our stuff ever will.
• Heavy equipment that uses Diesel engines, such as big rigs, bulldozers, earth movers, cranes, ships, trains and other industrial engines.
• Big rig trailer frames
• Aircraft, spacecraft, and ship structural frames
• Large in-building overhead crane main support beams
• Bridge construction
• Large building construction
• Etc., etc.

The fact that I-Beams are used in these applications, to name just a few, should serve as a sanity check for those who “think” H-Beams are better. H-Beam fans need to ask themselves one question, “If the H-Beam is better, then why haven’t they been used by Degreed Engineers in these applications over these many, many decades?”

So, the next time you need a set of rods, you might want to do yourself a favor, and only consider I-Beam rods which are a significant UPGRADE over H-Beams.

BOTTOM LINE: For comparably made I-Beam and H-Beam rods which weigh the same, the I-Beam will be FAR STRONGER IN COMPRESSION, than the H-Beam. For comparably made I-Beam and H-Beam rods that have the same strength in compression, the I-Beam will be FAR LIGHTER. The Engineering facts (NOT theory and NOT opinion) are that the I-Beam rod is simply a far stronger, lighter and more efficient design than the H-Beam. So, no matter what anyone tells you, there is simply NO good reason to ever use an H-Beam rod. It makes no sense to buy H-Beams when the clearly superior I-Beams are readily available.

H-Beam users sometimes get emotional and nasty about the fact that H-Beams are inferior in every way, and that they could have made a better choice. But, emotional outbursts will NOT change the Physics involved that prove the superiority of the I-Beam rod design. Of course people can use whatever they want, and for those still having a hard time accepting all this, consider the following:

Lunati’s recommendation for their rods:

• H-Beam Rods – ideal for High Performance street & mild race engines.

• Pro Series I-Beam Rods – perfect for Street Rods, Street-Strip Engines and all-out Race Engines

• Pro Mod I-Beam Rods – perfect for any racer needing an ultra-strong I-beam design

They also say that every Lunati connecting rod is forged from premium quality 4340 alloy steel for strength.

So, as you can see, Lunati knows what they are doing, mirrored what I said above, and got it right about H-Beams, I-Beams and forgings.

And speaking of that topic, no one “needs” a billet rod either. Forged rods have desirable grain structure and desirable residual compressive stresses, but billet rods DO NOT. Forged parts are always better than billet parts. For example, all fracture critical jet aircraft parts are forged, NOT billet. Billet parts are simply cheaper to manufacture in small quantities, even though machining time will be higher. Because billet parts do not require the horribly expensive forging presses and dies. But, when parts are produced in high enough mass quantities to spread out the cost of the forging presses and dies, then forged parts can end up being both superior and more affordable, because forgings don’t need as much final machining time.

540 RAT

.

====================

.

====================

.

2. ROD BOLT STRENGTH – WHAT DO WE REALLY NEED?

This write-up is not intended to be a chapter out of an Engineering Design Book. That would be way too long, way too involved, and way too boring for most folks here to have any interest in. Instead, this is just a general overview of how connecting rod bolts compare, and what we REALLY NEED in our motors.

Yield Strength = the stress at which a material begins to deform plastically. Prior to the yield point the material will deform elastically and will return to its original shape and size when the applied stress is removed. Once the yield point is passed, the deformation will be permanent, which is considered a “failed” condition for a bolt. So, the bolt must be discarded.

Tensile Strength = the maximum stress that a material can withstand while being stretched or pulled, without starting to neck down and ultimately breaking.

————

First let’s look at some typical strength values of various bolts, to get a general feel for how they compare.

Grade 2 hardware store general purpose bolt:
Yield strength = 55,000 psi
Tensile strength = 74,000 psi
Cost = a few cents each

——–

Grade 5 hardware store general purpose bolt:
Yield strength = 85,000 psi
Tensile strength = 120,000 psi
Cost = a few cents each

——–

Grade 8 hardware store general purpose bolt:
Yield strength = 120,000 psi
Tensile strength = 150,000 psi
Cost = a few cents each

———

ARP 8740 chrome moly “connecting rod” bolt:
Yield strength = 180,000 psi
Tensile strength = 200,000 psi
Cost = $120.00 per set of 16 at Summit Racing Equipment, or about $8.00 each.

———

ARP 2000 “connecting rod” bolt:
Yield strength = 180,000 psi
Tensile strength = 220,000 psi
ARP 2000 rod bolt material has twice the fatigue life of 8740 chrome moly rod bolt material.
Cost = $200.00 per set of 16 at Summit Racing Equipment, or about $13.00 each.

———

ARP L19 “connecting rod” bolt:
Yield strength = 200,000 psi
Tensile strength = 260,000 psi
ARP L19 rod bolt material is subject to hydrogen embrittlement, and stress corrosion. It also cannot be exposed to any moisture, including sweat and/or condensation.
Cost = $200.00 per set of 16 at Summit Racing Equipment, or about $13.00 each.

———

ARP Custom Age 625+ “connecting rod” bolt:
Yield strength = 235,000 psi
Tensile strength = 260,000 psi
ARP Custom Age 625+ rod bolt material has nearly 3 ½ times the fatigue life of the ARP 3.5 rod bolt material.
Cost = $600.00 per set of 16 at Summit Racing Equipment, or about $38.00 “EACH”.

———-
ARP 3.5 “connecting rod” bolt:
Yield strength = 220,000 psi
Tensile strength = 260,000 psi
Cost = $855.00 per set of 16 at Summit Racing Equipment, or about $53.00 “EACH”!!!

So, as you can see above, hardware store general purpose bolts are considerably weaker than “purpose built” connecting rod bolts. And we won’t even bother getting into the differences in fatigue life. Suffice it to say, we CANNOT use general purpose hardware store bolts in our connecting rods.

————–

A connecting rod bolt’s maximum tension loads are determined by the mass of the parts involved, the rod length, the stroke length, and the max rpm. That’s it. It has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the amount of HP being made. The max tension loads on the rod bolts will never change, no matter if you add Nitrous, a Turbo, or a Blower to an engine, as long as the short block and redline don’t change. That max tension loading occurs at TDC on the exhaust stroke as the mass involved is brought to a dead stop, and has its direction reversed. In order to change the max tension loading on the rod bolts, you’d have to change the short block configuration and/or the redline. And vacuum pulling on the rod bolts when chopping the throttle at high rpm, is not a concern. Because those affects don’t even begin to build until well past TDC, which of course is “AFTER” the mass of the parts involved has already been brought to a stop, and their direction reversed.

The rod’s big end “clamp-up preload” provided by stretching/torquing the rod bolts, must always be HIGHER than the “cyclic tension load” applied to the bolts at TDC exhaust, in order to prevent rod bolt failure. And the larger the difference between the preload and the cyclic load, the better. Precision detailed “Strength Analysis” calculations can be performed using sound Engineering principles, to determine the “Margin of Safety” (MOS) between the “cyclic tension loading” and the “clamp-up preload”, to make sure you have a sufficient MOS for the engine to be reliable. I’ll spare you all the involved and complicated math, and just show you the results.

Before we go on, first a comment on “cap screw” rod bolt sizes. Your rod bolts are NOT the size you think they are. If you run 3/8” rod bolts, only the threads are 3/8”. But, the part of the bolt that matters regarding the stretch, is the shank. And the main length of the shank is only 5/16”, not the 3/8” you might have thought. And if you run 7/16” rod bolts, the threads are 7/16”, but main length of the shank is only 3/8”. So, where you are most concerned, the bolts are one size SMALLER than you thought.

And if that isn’t enough detail, you must also consider, in addition to the main section of the shank, the other diameters involved which come from the radius transition between the threads and the shank, the radius transition between the shank and the shoulder right under the bolt head flange, and that shoulder itself right under the bolt head flange. The bolts stretch the whole length between the threads and the bolt head flange. And all those individual sections contribute to the total stretch by different amounts.

So, the rod bolt “Strength Analysis” must take into account all those various diameters, as well as the length of each of those diameters. Because the stretch has to be calculated for each individual section of the shank between the threads and the bolt head flange. If this is not done correctly, the “Strength Analysis” results will simply end up being wrong and worthless. But, for the results shown below, all those details were carefully worked out for those portions of the “Strength Analysis”. So, the answers below are all accurate.

Rod bolt “Strength Analysis” performed on known real world Street Hotrods, Street/Strip cars and Sportsman Drag cars, being operated at their typical maximum rpm, indicates the following:

• An engine with a max rpm rod bolt MOS of around 125% or higher, results in the engine being as safe and reliable as a stock grocery getter, or in other words essentially bullet proof. This is our design target when planning a new build. Having a MOS higher than this can’t hurt of course, but in terms of strength requirements, there is really no added value for doing that. However, a higher MOS can help with rod bolt fatigue life, if that is critical for a particular application. More on fatigue life later.

• If you are a little more aggressive, and run a maximum rpm rod bolt MOS between 100% and 125% only “on occasion”, which limits the number of cycles at this higher stress level, you will still generally be able to keep the engine together.

• But, if you were to run a typical maximum rpm rod bolt MOS under 100%, your rod bolts will be expected to fail prematurely.

As mentioned above in the definition of Yield Strength, we CANNOT stretch our rod bolts beyond the yield point. Because once the yield point is passed, it is considered a “failed” condition for a bolt, and the bolt must be discarded. So, a typical conservative Engineering approach in most general applications is to use a preload clamp-up of about 75% of yield. That way you have a good range between the installed preload and the yield point, in case the bolts get stressed even more during operational use. However, typical engine connecting rod bolt preload clamp-up in most reliable engines, can vary from a low of about 60% of yield to a high of about 90% of yield, with 75% of yield, the sweet spot you might say, right in the middle.

Since rod bolt stretch specs have generally become the standard in High Performance engine builds, the stretch called for is more often around 90% of the yield point. Stretching to this higher percentage of yield, is used to maximize preload clamp-up, in an effort to try and help minimize rod big end distortion at high rpm, which can cause additional undesirable rod bolt bending that would add to the bolt stress.

So, this high level of stretch is a good idea from that standpoint, but at the same time, you are left with a smaller range between the installed preload clamp-up and the yield point. But, this common 90% of yield has worked out quite well in the real world for Hotrods, Street/Strip cars, and Sportsman Drag cars. Even though there is less range between the installed preload clamp-up and the yield point, the yield point in properly selected rod bolts is not typically reached in actual operation, so all is good.

You may also have noticed that through all this discussion of rod bolt strength, there has been no mention at all of rod bolt tensile strength. That’s because we CANNOT go beyond the yield strength which is reached well “BELOW” the tensile strength. So, what good is tensile strength then? For a large number of steels, there is a direct correlation between tensile strength and fatigue life. Normally, as tensile strength increases, the fatigue life increases. So, while tensile strength does not come into play during rod bolt “Strength Analysis”, it is a factor in rod bolt fatigue life.

Rod bolt fatigue life is important to Road Racers because of the number of cycles they see. And rod bolt fatigue life is absolutely critical for Endurance Racers like NASCAR. And NASCAR teams do an incredible job managing the fatigue life of their rod bolts. But, for our Hotrods, Street/Strip cars and Sportsman Drag cars, rod bolt fatigue life isn’t typically a big concern, if the motors are built with the correct rod bolts in the first place. That is because these bolts won’t typically see enough cycles in their lifetime to cause a failure due to fatigue. But, with that said, it is still a good idea to keep fatigue life in the back of your mind, when it comes to choosing your rod bolts. It can be a tie breaker, in the event that multiple rod bolts are being considered for a certain build. More on that below.

—————-

Even though there are various companies that offer rod bolts, below we will compare 5 different rod bolts offered by Industry leader ARP.

So, let’s take a look at a typical 540ci BBC motor, running steel rods with 7/16 “cap screw” rod bolts, and uses 7,500 rpm as its typical maximum, which results in a cyclic tension load on each rod bolt that = 7,280 lbs or about 3.6 tons:

• For general reference, let’s first take a look at rods installed the old school traditional way, here using ARP 2000 rod bolts that are torqued to about 75 ft lbs with original ARP moly lube.
Bolt stretch is about .005”, which = 76% of yield strength
Clamp-up preload on each rod bolt = 16,531 lbs or about 8.3 tons
Margin of Safety (MOS) for this setup = 127%, which meets our MOS design target for being safe, reliable and essentially bullet proof.

Now, for the rest of the rod bolts we’ll be looking at, we’ll preload them to the more common higher percentage of yield strength, which is typical of the stretch called for these days.

• Using ARP 8740 chrome moly rod bolts (this has the same yield strength as ARP 2000)
Bolt stretch = .006” which = 90% of yield strength
Clamp-up preload on each rod bolt = 19,686 lbs or about 9.8 tons
Margin of Safety (MOS) = 170%

• Using ARP 2000 rod bolts (this has the same yield strength as 8740 chrome moly)
Bolt stretch = .006” which = 90% of yield strength
Clamp-up preload on each rod bolt = 19,686 lbs or about 9.8 tons
Margin of Safety (MOS) = 170%

• Using ARP L19 rod bolts
Bolt stretch = .0066” which = 90% of yield strength
Clamp-up preload on each rod bolt = 21,655 lbs or about 10.8 tons
Margin of Safety (MOS) = 197%

• Using ARP Custom Age 625+ rod bolts
Bolt stretch = .0078” which = 90% of yield strength
Clamp-up preload on each rod bolt = 25,445 lbs or about 12.7 tons
Margin of Safety (MOS) = 250%

• Using ARP 3.5 rod bolts
Bolt stretch = .0073” which = 90% of yield strength
Clamp-up preload on each rod bolt = 23,821 lbs or about 11.9 tons
Margin of Safety (MOS) = 227%

As you can see above in all 6 examples, whether torqued the traditional way to a lower stretch value, or stretched to the more recently called for higher percentage of yield value, all these rod bolts are above the minimum 125% MOS target for safety and reliability. Therefore, all these configurations would operate without issue, just like a stock grocery getter. So, if a builder chooses any of these bolts or stretch values between the 127% and the 250% “Margins of Safety” above, he could NOT go wrong, no matter how much HP the motor makes. Remember that HP has NOTHING to do with the max tension loads on rod bolts.

Since most Hotrods, Street/Strip cars, and Sportsman Drag cars, with their lower number of cycles, can live almost indefinitely with some of the more affordable mainstream rod bolts above, it’s rather hard to make a case for using the much more expensive and higher strength 625+ or 3.5 bolts, even if they do have higher fatigue life values.

BOTTOM LINE

So then, all we REALLY NEED, from a conservative Engineering standpoint, is to at least reach the 125% MOS target for safety and reliability, no matter how much HP is being made. And anything above that 125% is fine, but not necessary.

But, things aren’t always wine and roses, because some engines will NOT stay together and live like the well built configurations above. I’ve done “failed” rod bolt “Strength Analysis” on two smaller very high revving engines, after the fact, to take a look at why they failed. One blew-up catastrophically when a rod bolt broke, costing its owner 20 grand. And the other engine was found to have rod bolts stretched beyond the yield point, during a teardown for other reasons. So, its fuse had been lit, but fortunately it was caught just in the nick of time before they let go, saving its owner a ton of money and agony.

In both cases, the rod bolt “Strength Analysis” revealed that they had been built wrong, and that they were well BELOW 100% MOS, which predicts premature rod bolt failure. One had only a 67% MOS and the other had only an 86% MOS. If rod bolt “Strength Analysis” had been performed before these engines were built, during the planning stages, then all that grief and cost could have been avoided. They have since been rebuilt much stronger, with MOS values now well ABOVE that 125% safe target. And they have now been raced for some time without issue.

SUMMARY

• ARP 8740 chrome moly rod bolt – a strong affordable rod bolt, but it has only a moderate fatigue life, which makes the ARP 2000 rod bolt which is in the same general price range, a much better choice since it has twice the fatigue life.

• ARP 2000 rod bolt – considering how good its strength and fatigue life are, this rod bolt is an excellent choice for most Hotrods, Street/Strip cars, and Sportsman Drag cars.

• ARP L19 rod bolt – the strength and fatigue life increases this bolt provides over the ARP 2000 are not significant enough to overcome the concerns the L19 has with hydrogen embrittlement, stress corrosion, and the fact that it CANNOT be exposed to any moisture, including sweat and/or condensation. Don’t forget that every engine forms condensation inside, at every cold start-up. Plus, oil rises to the top of, and floats on water because of density differences, which can leave portions of the rod bolts exposed to water even after the engine is built. Therefore, it is best to avoid the L19 rod bolt altogether, especially since the ARP 2000 rod bolt already provides way more than enough strength and fatigue life than is typically required by most Hotrods, Street/Strip cars, and Sportsman Drag cars. So, there simply is no good reason to select the ARP L19 rod bolt. If you are currently running L19 bolts, I’d suggest you consider replacing them with different bolts the next time you have the motor apart.

• ARP Custom Age 625+ rod bolt – a very pricey bolt, but with its excellent strength and its impressive fatigue life, this bolt is one of the very best rod bolts on the market.

• ARP 3.5 rod bolt – this bolt has excellent strength, but its staggering cost is 43% HIGHER than the 625+ bolt, yet the 625+ bolt is superior to the 3.5 bolt in virtually every way. So, there is no good reason to select the 3.5 bolt either.

CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION

Of the 5 rod bolts above:

• The ARP 2000 rod bolt is an excellent value, considering how good its strength and fatigue life are. And it should be considered the rod bolt of choice for most Hotrods, Street/Strip cars, and Sportsman Drag cars, no matter how much HP they make. And this is why you most often see quality aftermarket rods come with these bolts.

• ARP Custom Age 625+ rod bolt has a price that is not for the faint of wallet, but it should be considered the rod bolt of choice for very high revving engines, road race engines, and endurance engines, which require the utmost in rod bolt strength and/or fatigue life.
540 RAT

.

====================

.

====================

.

3. SOLID ROLLER LIFTERS – BUSHINGS VS NEEDLES, WHICH IS BEST?

Discussions about running solid roller lifters in BBC’s, can be a hotly debated topic. The debate breaks down into two sides. On one side is the traditional needle type solid roller lifter and on the other side is the newer and much higher load rated bushing type solid roller lifter.

Let me say right up front, that I have no agenda here at all. The purpose of the following write-up is only to share the findings that came out of my “root cause failure analysis” investigation into needle bearing failures in solid roller lifters. By sharing the results of my investigation, I thought it could help fellow Hotrodders and Racers to make a better informed buying decision. I have only good intentions about sharing this data, because I feel that everyone deserves to know the truth about what’s been going on, and how the two types of lifters compare.

Personally, I do not sell lifters, nor do I work for a company that does. So I have no stake in what particular brands or models of lifters are good, bad or questionable. Therefore, I have no stake in what lifters are purchased either. I also don’t care what parts other people run in their motors. That’s up to them. The info I provide here is not based on emotion or personal preference. It is simply based on the Engineering facts, and followed up with my thoughts based on those facts. That’s it, nothing more.

It is not exactly clear how high the failure percentage is with the needle type solid roller lifters. But these failures have been a significant issue for BBC’s, for some years now, and are still happening. Over the last several years, most of my BBC friends, buddies and acquaintances, as well as numerous participants from various Hotrod and Racing Forums, have experienced premature needle type solid roller lifter failures, associated with the needles, axles and/or roller wheels.

The engine damage has ranged from just the lifters themselves, all the way to major engine destruction, requiring a total rebuild. This is not something new. Among the people I know who’ve experienced premature failures, it spreads from California to Nova Scotia, and from mild to wild engines. There is certainly more of a potential for these needle type lifters to fail, than there is with any other component inside a BBC. Whatever the true failure percentage is, it is way too high to simply ignore altogether. So, it would be wise to at least take that into consideration when it comes time to purchase a set of solid roller lifters.

Comp Cams has said that the life expectancy of their ENDURE-X “needle type” solid roller lifter in street driven BBC’s is ONLY 2,000 MILES!!! And those lifters are pressure fed, come with precision sorted needles, and have wear resistant tool steel axles. And in Isky’s ads for their “bushing type” EZ-Roll solid roller lifters, they say that with these lifters, you’ll never worry about needle bearing overload or premature roller bearing failure again, because they provide 350% higher load rating than comparable needle type solid roller lifters. And now many other Companies are following Isky into the bushing type solid roller lifter market. So, all of these lifter manufacturers certainly recognize the fact that needle type solid roller lifters have some serious durability/longevity short comings.

While solid roller setups do make the most power, they can also decrease the valve train’s life expectancy, compared to what you would generally expect from other types of lifters. Failures of needle type pressure fed solid roller lifters as early as 3,000 to 5,000 miles, or even earlier with street driven BBC Hotrods is not that uncommon. Even the highly regarded Morel needle type solid rollers that they supply to Lunati, have failed at about 5,000 miles in an 850 HP BBC Street/Strip Hotrod. So, there is nothing magical about those particular lifters either.

However, one of the earliest and nastiest failures that I am aware of, was from a set of Isky Redzone needle type lifters that suffered needle/axle failure at only 1,500 miles in another Street/Strip BBC Hotrod, and wiped out the whole engine. But the single “earliest” failure that I’m aware of was from a set of Isky Redzones needle type lifters that suffered needle/axle failure at only 1,200 miles in a mild BBC Street Hotrod.

But some folks think that if they choose the right oil, they can keep their pressure fed solid roller lifters in good shape. But the fact is, that no matter what oil you run, even all the way up to high zinc/phos Racing Oils that cost around $20 per quart, your pressure fed solid roller lifters can still fail at a time/mileage that most of us would consider premature. So, even if you use the best oil money can buy, it cannot save you. That’s because these lifters typically do NOT suffer from oil related failures (more on that below).

Of course there are some who maintain that pressure fed solid roller lifters don’t experience premature failure, with their owners wondering what all the fuss is about. But reasonable longevity, as a good number of people have found out the hard way, is not guaranteed. Having these lifters reach an acceptable life span, can be just the luck of the draw and not something that you can bet your engine on.

And no matter how well built your engine is. No matter how much valve spring pressure you have. No matter how good your rocker geometry is. No matter what brand of lifter you have. No matter how often you change your oil. No matter what lifter to bore clearance you run (more on that below). At the end of the day, there are only two kinds of pressure fed needle type solid roller lifter users. Those who have had premature failures and those who are vulnerable to premature failures. These lifters are absolutely NOT bullet proof. In fact they are essentially a ticking time bomb waiting to go off, as you will see below.

When I first looked into this issue, the needle type solid roller lifter failures were a very often discussed problem, and no one ever made any attempt to determine what the root cause of the failure was. So, I decided to look into it myself for my own reason. And that reason was that I was building a Street/Strip 540 BBC for myself, and I did not want the engine destroyed by failed needle lifters.

So, I decided to perform a root cause failure analysis, in order to get to the bottom of this all too common premature failure issue. While it is difficult to accurately say just what the failure percentages are, I at least wanted to inspect failed examples and determine why those that had failed, did fail. To that end, I collected a few sets (I would have liked a much larger sampling, but these were the only examples I could get my hands on at the time) of FAILED standard diameter .842″ BBC pressure fed, needle type solid roller lifters. These failed lifters were different name brands, and had used different name brands and viscosities of high zinc/phos oils. And they were from different performance level engines, ranging from relatively MILD to relatively WILD.
FACTS FROM THE INVESTIGATION:

The engines’ specs are:

*** 408ci BBC, 243*/249* duration at .050, .663″/.655″ valve lift, .024/.026 hot lash, 210 lbs on the seat valve spring pressure, 567 lbs on the nose valve spring pressure, 15W40 Chevron Delo motor oil, Isky Redzone lifters, 6300 max rpm. These failed at about 3,000 nearly all street miles. This is a relatively mild BBC Hotrod, so failures are certainly NOT limited to only super High Performance motors.

*** 540ci BBC, 266*/272* duration at .050, .678″/.688″ valve lift, .016 hot lash, 260 lbs on the seat valve spring pressure, 650 lbs on the nose valve spring pressure, 20W50 Redline motor oil, Crower HIPPO lifters. These started to fail at about 5,000 nearly all street miles. This is a stout Street/Strip BBC Hotrod.

*** 632ci BBC, 277*/292* duration at .050, .848″/.824″ valve lift, .026/.028 hot lash, 325 lbs on the seat valve spring pressure, 875 lbs on the nose valve spring pressure, 20W50 Mobil 1, Redline, and Royal Purple XPR Racing Oil, Crower HIPPO lifters, 7200 max rpm. These failed after 1 1/2 years. Mileage and driving style not documented. This is an example of a BBC Race motor.

Careful root cause failure analysis revealed that oiling had played no part what so ever in these failures, but they all had suffered needle/axle failure due to the EXACT SAME root cause – METAL SURFACE FATIGUE FAILURE. This is exhibited by extensive flaking and pitting of the metal’s surface, which is called Spalling. With loose flakes floating around, and the surface no longer smooth and round, the needles can stop rolling and start sliding, thus forming flat spots, which just speeds up the failure process all the more.

This metal fatigue failure comes from excessive loading in general, and from excessive shock loading/hammering in particular. These lifters are way too small for the loads they typically see. And as such, they are a poor design for this application, when it comes to any certainty of a long life. So, it really is not surprising that they are susceptible to failure. After all, jack hammering is designed to destroy things.

And if that isn’t bad enough, I also found that only the 3 bottom needles are in “load-bearing” contact when the lifter is loaded down. On top of that, the needles only make a “line contact”, which means extremely high localized pressure on the needles themselves, as well as on the axle and on the roller ID. And not only had the needles/axles failed, as is normally the case, but the roller OD’s, which are also subject to metal surface fatigue failure, had also failed or were starting to fail, depending on the particular set in question. And the larger the lash had been, the worse the lifters had failed.

As for lifter to bore clearance: The smaller the clearance, the less the lifters can tilt to the side, and the more the load is evenly applied across the whole length of the needles, axle and roller wheel, which can help postpone lifter failure a little. And the larger the clearance, the more the lifter can be severely loaded on only one end of the needles, axle and roller wheel, due to lifter sideways tipping. And that just makes this whole problem go from bad to worse, thus accelerating the failure. So, for that reason, I’d recommend not exceeding .0015” lifter to bore clearance with .842” lifters.

Keep in mind that for iron and steel, the coefficient of thermal expansion is essentially identical. What that means is that the lifter to lifter bore clearance will stay virtually the same from cold to hot engine temps. Therefore, that max recommended clearance of .0015” is more than enough. Remember the rule of thumb for iron/steel parts is, .001” clearance for every 1.0” of diameter. So, by that rule, .842” lifters really only need .000842” inches of clearance, which means that .0015” clearance is nearly twice what they actually NEED. Any more clearance than that, and you are only making things worse for the lifters.

Spintron testing has shown that the lifters can bounce up and down on the cam’s base circle, within their lash slop. So, the larger the lash, the more severe the shock loading/hammering can be, even with proper spring pressures. Because the lifter isn’t always going to be in a position to follow the lobe’s clearance ramp as intended, but instead it will hit hard somewhere on that ramp. So all the effort the cam designer put into designing that clearance ramp, will have no effect at all on how hard the lifter hits, at the point of actual contact.

And of course if an engine isn’t built right, and the spring pressures aren’t high enough, Spintron testing has also shown that in this case, the lifters can even bounce the valves up and down off their seats as well. This obviously just makes things go from bad to worse.

So, no matter what Super Duper brand or model of lifter you run, due to this repeated shock loading/hammering, you can still end up with prematurely failed pressure fed needle type solid roller lifters.

After I determined the root cause of these failed lifters, I pulled a brand new set of Crower Severe Duty needle type HIPPO lifters out of my 540ci BBC and put in a set of Isky bushing type EZX’s (a particular version of the EZ-Roll design).

The EZX’s bushings spread the load way out across the axle’s surface, thus greatly reducing the localized pressure between them. As Isky has stated, they have a 350% higher load rating than needle type solid roller lifters. However, even this bushing type of lifter is still subject to roller OD surface fatigue failure, but at least the highly vulnerable needles are gone.
SUMMARY/SUGGESTIONS:

1. The overall big picture failure percentage is still unclear, but to be on the safe side, I recommend NOT running needle type solid roller lifters, no matter what brand, no matter how expensive they might be, and no matter what their marketing hype says. Because the needles and their axles are by far the most vulnerable to premature metal surface fatigue failure, even if they have high pressure pin oiling.

Failures with these needle type lifters can include the lifters themselves, the cam, and the block’s lifter bores. And in the worst case, which is not that unusual, they can wipe out the whole engine, requiring a total rebuild. If you do choose to run needle type solid roller lifters anyway, rather than upgrading to the much higher load rated bushing type, you may well be playing Russian Roulette with your engine. And you’d need to ask yourself, is it REALLY worth risking potential engine destruction, when a far superior, much more durable alternative is readily available?

Clearly the best plan to try and avoid the potential for failure, is to upgrade to the “non-needle” bushing type pressure fed solid roller lifters, which have a much, much higher load rating. Although there are now a number of different bushing lifters on the market, one of the most popular lifter of this kind, is the Isky EZX bushing type solid roller lifter. While there is no such thing as a bulletproof solid roller lifter, these lifters are about as close as you will get.

2. Try not to exceed .0015” lifter to bore clearance with .842” lifters. The smaller the clearance, the more the load is spread out and evenly applied across the whole axle, bushing/needles and roller wheel, which can help postpone lifter failure a little. And the larger the clearance, the more the load can be applied to only one end of the axle, bushing/needles and roller wheel, due to lifter sideways tipping, which can drive up localized loading and increase the likelihood of failure.

3. Run the smallest amount of lash that you can live with. Because reduced lash will allow less clearance slop for the lifter to bounce around in. And not being so far out of position on the lobe’s ramp, can help to somewhat reduce the shock loading/bouncing/hammering that the lifters will see, no matter how well that cam lobe ramp is designed.

4. Since you cannot escape metal fatigue failure, it is best to try and replace/rebuild the lifters at frequent enough intervals to head off failure before it catches up with you. But failure intervals are unpredictable and can vary widely, which makes it very difficult to decide on a maximum interval to follow. The most common failure interval that I’m aware of, not limited just to those I personally inspected, seems to be between 3,000 and 5,000 miles, though it’s not that unusual for them to fail much sooner than that, as mentioned above. With that being the case, personally I’d never exceed 5,000 miles, as a rebuild/replace max limit.

All you can really do is use your best judgement here. I recommend being on the conservative side, because the engine you might save will be your own. But at least with bushing type solid roller lifters, all we have to be on the lookout for is roller wheel OD surface fatigue failure, since they don’t use the “vulnerable to failure” needles.

5. You could also “consider” running a rev kit, if that is reasonable for your application. It “may” help a little by keeping the lifter in contact with the lobe. But engines equipped with rev kits, that were still running the normally “called for” loose lash, have still suffered premature pressure fed needle type solid roller lifter failures. Even though a rev kit will keep the solid roller lifter in contact with the lobe, base circle and ramps, you still most likely are running the recommended sloppy loose lash. All that slop didn’t just magically go away because the lifter stays in contact with the cam. It still has to be taken up somewhere, and that somewhere is taken up with hammer blows to the pushrod/rocker arm, when the lifter smacks into pushrod, and/or when the pushrod smacks into the rocker. And all that shock loading gets reacted at the roller/axle/needle interface with the lobe. So, rev kits don’t really seem to help all that much.

6. Don’t lose any sleep over what oil brand or viscosity to run, how often to change it, or whether or not it has high or low levels of zinc/phos, because it won’t make any difference when it comes to metal fatigue failure. Just use your favorite oil and change it at your normal interval. Though running a high quality oil with excellent film strength is always a good choice in general.

7. Beyond what is mentioned above, all you can really do is just keep a close eye out for any unusual changes in lash, to try and catch a failure in its early stages, before too much damage is done.

Only “hydraulic” roller setups, that don’t have such radical lobes, don’t have such high spring pressures, don’t see such high rpm, and have no lash, thus no bouncing/hammering/shock loading, seem to have an acceptable record of a good life expectancy on the street, in most cases. So, these are the lifters that really “should” be used in street driven Hotrods.

But of course a lot of us choose to run solid roller lifters on the street anyway, for the performance capability they provide. But truth be told, this type of lifter is really only intended for race engines. So, we have to deal with their shortcomings when they are used in street driven Hotrods, which is not really the correct application. Because of course, street driven Hotrods see way more time/mileage/jack hammer pounding cycles than race engines ever will.

BOTTOM LINE: Solid roller lifters are very high maintenance parts when run on the street. And to be on the safe side, they will need to be rebuilt/replaced at frequent intervals, when used in that manner. They are probably the weakest link in most street driven BBC engines. And just installing them and forgetting them, can be very risky.

We have generally pushed this nearly 60 year old basic pushrod engine design about as far as we can. And to totally eliminate the potential for lifter failure, we’d need to upgrade to a more modern overhead cam design. But for those of us who still choose to run our beloved traditional BBC’s, we’ll just have to deal with this potential problem as best we can. That’s the price we pay for power.

Everyone will have to make their own decision about what lifter type they choose to run. But you’ll find the much higher load rated, bushing type Isky EZX solid roller lifters, with a much higher margin of safety, in my 540 BBC.

540 RAT

.
===============================

.

===============================

.
4. CAMSHAFT OVERLAP VS LSA (LOBE SEPARATION ANGLE)

Let’s take a look at which method makes the most sense for selecting a cam, LSA (lobe separation angle) or Overlap and Duration. Many cam designers and engine builders will tell racers, hot rodders and gear heads to start with some particular LSA for choosing a cam. And of course you hear guys say, that they are going to be picking a new cam, and that they will be using “such and such LSA”, but that they haven’t yet decided on the lift and duration. And they don’t even consider the specific overlap value at all.

The whole idea of starting with some given LSA as a starting point, simply makes no sense at all. Here’s why: LSA has no value at all, in and of itself, because of the fact that it is “overlap” that defines an engine’s operational characteristics. And LSA is merely a “by-product” of that overlap. In fact, Comp Cams guru Billy Godbold and I share the same philosophy about that. And he said this:

“LSA doesn’t mean anything except for how it affects the camshaft centerlines. You determine the centerlines, which determines OVERLAP, and THAT has performance effects.”

Here’s an example of what we are talking about.
Let’s say some old time cam designer or engine builder tells a young kid that he should use a 110* LSA for an old 327 ci flat tappet SBC that he wants to do his first modification on. So, the kid pulls out a Comp Cams catalog and looks up solid flat tappet cams for it. And since he was told to go with a 110* LSA as a starting point, he comes across these two cams that have the 110* LSA as was recommended, as well as the following “advertised duration” and “.050 duration”:

CAM..………….ADV DUR…………….. .050 DUR
#1……………….256*/262*……………….218*/224*
#2……………….306*/306*……………….260*/260*

Now, anyone at all familiar with cams would see a very significant difference between these two cams. Old Pro’s know what they are seeing, but the kid can’t tell much about them. And yet they both have the SAME EXACT recommended 110* LSA. So, targeting that particular LSA didn’t tell the kid anything at all in terms of how the cams will operate/perform in his engine. But if he’d calculated “advertised overlap”, using the procedure below, he’d get advertised overlap values of:

Cam #1 = 39*
Cam #2 = 86*

There is obviously a HUGE difference between these advertised overlap values, but again, these two cams have the SAME EXACT 110* LSA. Now if he looks at the adv overlap reference chart below, he’d see that cam #1 falls between the “ordinary street” and “street performance” categories. So, that cam isn’t much more than Granny’s grocery getter cam. But, cam #2 falls fully into the “race” category, making it a wicked cam by any measure. Now the kid can see that they are radically different cams, even though they have the SAME EXACT 110* LSA. So, it took the “overlap” to finally show him that he is dealing with two entirely different cams that have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT operational characteristics.

This clearly shows how LSA, all by itself, does NOT make a distinction between operational characteristics, and is virtually useless in defining a cam. But on the other hand, ADVERTISED OVERLAP absolutely DOES define a cam’s operational characteristics, every time. So, it makes much more sense to go in knowing how much overlap you want, then select a cam based on that, which will best meet your needs. Now the kid can make a much more informed buying decision.

As shown above, cams can be wildly different with the SAME EXACT LSA, but ADVERTISED OVERLAP will always show you what’s going on. and here are some reference examples of how various overlaps compare :

.
“APPROXIMATE” SOLID LIFTER ADVERTISED OVERLAP PERFORMANCE REFERENCE CHART

300ci…………………400ci…………………500+ci……….Typical usage
10*…………………….25*………………. ….40*…………. towing
30*…………………….45*……………….. ….60*…………..ordinary street
50*…………………….62.5*…………….. ….75*……………street performance
70*…………………….80*……………………90*…………..street/strip
85*…………………….92.5*…………………100*…………..race
95*…………………….105*………………….115*…………..Pro race

.
Here’s the CORRECT way to calculate your cam’s ADVERTISED OVERLAP which is needed for the chart above:

• Add your intake and exhaust advertised duration (typically shown as duration at .015 tappet lift. NOTE: duration at .050 tappet lift will NOT give you the correct advertised duration value)

• Divide that answer by 4

• Subtract the lobe separation angle (LSA) from that answer

• Multiply that answer by 2, and you have the CORRECT advertised overlap to use in the chart above

NOTE: Because of the differences resulting from not having any lash, and the way hydraulic cam advertised duration is rated, if you want to figure the “advertised overlap” for a HYDRAULIC LIFTER cam, so that you can use the chart above, REDUCE the Hydraulic cam’s listed ADVERTISED DURATION (typically shown as duration at .006 tappet lift) by 8*, for both intake and exhaust, then follow the calculation procedure as shown above.

If you consider OVERLAP rather than LSA, you can make a much better decision about the cam you select for your next build.

540 RAT

.

====================

.

====================

.
5. LEAKDOWN TEST vs COMPRESSION TEST – WHICH IS BEST?

Using a compression tester to check the basic condition of an engine is better than nothing, but it is NOT the best choice. Compression test results can be inaccurate and inconsistent. This is because the condition of the battery, variations in ambient temperature, and the effects of the presence or lack of oil around the rings which helps seal them, as you go from the first cylinder to the last cylinder, and/or if the engine has been sitting, can all affect the results. This makes a compression test only a mediocre unreliable test at best.

Leakdown testing is by far the BEST METHOD for checking an engine’s basic condition. It is done by checking each cylinder at TDC (top dead center) of the compression stroke. You need to have the engine “exactly” at TDC of the compression stroke, then you won’t have to hold the crankshaft. Because it will stay right there, while you perform the test. And any leakage heard, helps to pinpoint where any problems are located. Air leaking out of the air filter, carburetor, or fuel injection throttle body, indicates a leaking intake valve. Air leaking out of the exhaust system indicates a leaking exhaust valve. Air leaking out of an oil filler cap opening, a crankcase ventilation hose or breather, indicates piston ring leakage. And air leaking out of the radiator cap opening, indicates a leaking head gasket.

I’ve tested the 3 different types of leakdown testers.

* One is a single gauge tester that reads leakdown percentage directly. This one is NOT recommended because its accuracy is typically not the best.

* Another one is a dual gauge “low input pressure (typically around 35 psi or less, depending on the particular unit)” type that has one psi gauge and one gauge face that shows leakdown percentage directly. These are usually fairly inexpensive, and are also NOT recommended because of their typical inaccuracy.

* And the last type is a matching dual psi gauge “high input pressure (usually can go up to 100 psi)” type. This type is convenient to use, and has good accuracy, making it clearly the BEST of the 3 leakdown tester types. So, if you decide to get a leakdown tester, do yourself a favor and get THIS type.

Note: Input pressure can be referred to in two ways, static and dynamic. Static means you set the regulator to the desired input pressure, say 80 psi (more on that below) with the tester NOT connected to the engine yet.

Then once you do connect the tester to the engine, the pressure will drop somewhat, becoming dynamic input pressure. You can then readjust the regulator to bring that dynamic input pressure back up to the original 80 psi, if you want. But I’ve found no difference at all in the final leakdown percentage results between doing that, or just letting the pressure drop somewhat and leaving it there. So, the most convenient method is to simply set the static input pressure to 80 psi and simply leave it.

The way to get to the final answer for a given test is:

For example, after you connect the 80 psi static pressurized tester to the engine, the left side regulator controlled gauge may say something like 70 psi after it drops, while the right side engine leakage gauge may say something like 65 psi.

You just plug a few numbers into your calculator, in the following manner:

* You ask yourself, 65 psi on the leakage gauge is what % of the 70 psi on the dynamic input pressure gauge?

* So, you punch into the calculator 65/.70 (don’t forget that its “point” 70 here) and the answer comes up 92.8, which means that the right side leakage gauge is showing or holding 92.8% as much as the left side input gauge.

* And because the original 70 psi dynamic input pressure was 100% of the dynamic input pressure, you simply punch into your calculator 100 – 92.8 = 7.2% leakage in that cylinder, which is your final accurate answer for that cylinder.

That’s all there is to it.

For those who don’t use much math, that may seem like too much trouble. But if you read through what was done a couple of times, and then actually do it a couple of times, you’ll see that it’s no big deal at all. And you’ll be crunching the numbers freely after the first couple of cylinders.

There is no universally accepted input pressure for automotive leakdown testing. But the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) has established 80 psi input pressure as their standard for leakdown testing on piston aircraft engines. And they allow up to 25% leakdown in those aircraft engines.

That 80 psi input pressure works perfectly fine for car engines too, so I use that as my input pressure as well.

And the reference chart I use for COLD leakdown testing on High Performance Engines is:

0-10 % = good condition

10-15% = though not ideal, still acceptable

over 15% = tear down and repair recommended for optimum performance

(for non-performance daily driver/grocery getter type vehicles, over 30% = tear down and repair recommended)

As a point of reference, my 540ci BBC Street/Strip engine shows a COLD leakdown of about 3%, using conventional Speed Pro rings, with a top ring end gap of .021” and a second ring end gap of .027”. And keep in mind that anytime you do a leakdown test, at least with conventional rings, you will hear some air leakage. Even for the small amount of leakdown that my engine shows, I can still hear some air leakage hissing out of the breathers, from the ring end gaps.
.
540 RAT

.
====================

.

====================

.

6. CAN YOU REALLY SUCK THE OIL PAN DRY?

From time to time, you will hear someone claim they had an issue with sucking the oil pan dry because of running a high volume oil pump. But, sucking the pan dry because of the oil pump size is only an OLD WIVES’ TALE with no truth to it at all. An oil pump can only pump as much oil out of the pan, as the motor will bleed off through all its clearances. Beyond that, the oil pump reaches bypass pressure and simply returns any excess oil to the pump’s intake side, or else the relief valve releases the excess oil directly back into the pan. Either way, it’s not sucking that extra amount of oil out of the pan. Therefore, it’s leaving a larger volume of oil “in” the pan. And if for some reason the bypass isn’t large enough, then the pressure would HAVE TO GO UP.

Once an oil pump reaches bypass pressure, it makes no difference whether the pump is std volume or high volume, it won’t drain oil from the pan any quicker. Pressure is pressure, no matter how it is generated. So, if a std volume pump can’t pump the pan dry, then neither can a high volume pump at the same pressure.

In order to suck the pan dry, you’d have to have “insufficient drain-back”. Blaming the pump, would be misidentifying the problem. Sure the pump gets the oil up to the top, but its drain-back that gets it back to the pan. So, just be sure that you have plenty of drain-back capacity and it would be impossible to pump the pan dry.

While dyno testing my 540ci BBC with .003” clearance on the rods and mains, using 5W30 synthetic oil, and using a Titan “high volume” gerotor oil pump, it maintained a rock steady 80 psi (the preset relief valve setting) from about 5,000 rpm on up, with no pressure drop AT ALL. So, there was no sign of aerated oil. Now, with a pump that big, generating that much oil pressure, and using oil that thin, if an engine was ever going to pump the pan dry, that should have been it, right?

But it never happened, and it maintained oil pressure better than most I’ve seen. The thinner oil will also drain back better, but it will have also passed more oil through the engine, providing better flow/lubrication and cooling. One thing I did during the engine build, was to enlarge the drain-back holes in the AFR heads, to twice their original area. And if that’s all it took for sufficient drain-back to keep from pumping the pan dry, then keeping the pan full of oil is NOT Rocket Science.

NOTE: The information here about oil pumps and oil drain-back, as it relates to concerns about an engine sucking its own oil pan dry, absolutely applies to statically mounted engines on a dyno as well as to engines being operated dynamically in a vehicle. The only difference is that engines being operated dynamically in a vehicle also have the additional requirement for an oil pan design that will keep the oil pump pickup submerged in oil during dynamic operation, rather than letting the oil be sloshed away from the pickup, which would starve the engine of oil. But, starving the engine of oil because of oil being sloshed away from the pickup, and concerns about the engine sucking its own pan dry, are NOT the same thing.

540 RAT

.

====================

.

====================

.
7. DYNAMIC COMPRESSION RATIO (DCR) VS STATIC COMPRESSION RATIO (SCR)

Most every gearhead believes that he understands compression ratio numbers, and simply takes them at face value. The normal compression ratio that everyone talks about and see’s on spec sheets is technically called “STATIC” compression ratio (SCR). That is always “THE” compression ratio being discussed unless otherwise specified.

And it of course comes from:

The total cylinder/head gasket/combustion chamber volume at BDC (bottom dead center), which we will call “V large”.

Then divide that total volume at BDC by the combustion chamber volume at TDC (top dead center), call that “V small”. So, you have (V large / V small) = Static compression ratio. As the name implies, it is a ratio of the max total volume divided by the small volume.

The 4 strokes are of course:

1. Intake
2. Compression
3. Power
4. Exhaust

And that’s all well and good for textbook learning, but in a real running engine, things aren’t so cut and dried. The “problem” is that an engine never “see’s or feels” the static compression ratio number. So, that makes the static compression ratio more or less a theoretical reference tool.

The difference in a running engine is that the cylinder volume needed to determine a running or Dynamic compression ratio (DCR), is not calculated with the piston at BDC. It is calculated with the piston at the position where the intake valve just closes. It is only at this point, that true compression can actually begin.

Here are the Intake and Exhaust valve timing events at .050” tappet lift (meaning lobe lift or lifter lift, NOT valve lift), per my 540ci BBC engine’s cam card:

In. opens at 25* BTDC (before top dead center)
In. closes at 61* ABDC (after bottom dead center) = 266* duration at .050 tappet lift

Ex. opens at 64* BBDC (before bottom dead center)
Ex. closes at 28* ATDC (after top dead center) = 272* duration at .050 tappet lift

As you can see, there is overlapping everywhere. This is done to optimize engine performance by making use of dynamic intake charge ramming effects and dynamic exhaust gas scavenging effects. So, actual running engine specs don’t fit neatly into the basic idea of the simple and separate 4 strokes. In order to calculate DCR from a useful intake valve closing point, rather than the .050” tappet lift timing shown above from the cam card, you need to use the Cam maker’s advertised tappet lift value.

For my Comp Cams steel billet solid roller cam, the advertised duration specs are given at .015” tappet lift. But my cam card does not provide the actual intake and exhaust timing events at that .015” tappet lift spec. So, I manually measured and calculated the piston/crankshaft position at the intake valve closing point based on .015” tappet lift of my actual engine. I did this during engine assembly mock up, where I could also take into account valve lash, rocker arm geometry, and rocker arm ratio. By doing it this way, I ended up with very precise numbers, which were used to get the most accurate final results. But, to get numbers this precise, it required that I determine the actual DCR after the fact, rather than determining it before buying any parts. So, I had to make some careful calculations earlier, in order to end up as close to my target as possible.

I ended up with my intake valves closing at 80.5* ABDC (or only 99.5* from TDC, rather than the theoretically ideal of BDC or 180* BTDC). This position had the piston 2.805” from TDC.
And considering that my stroke is 4.250”, this means that my piston had traveled 34% up the cylinder before the intake valve had closed, and compression could finally begin. I have a fairly large bad boy street/strip cam, and the larger the cam’s duration, the later the intake valve will close.

Then to do the calculations for DCR, it’s from the total cylinder/head gasket/combustion chamber volume at the point of intake valve closing. Call that value “DV large”. Then divide all that by the combustion chamber volume at TDC, the same value that was used above to calculate the SCR, which was called simply “V small”. So, you have (DV large / V small) = Dynamic compression ratio. As the name implies, it is a ratio of the large volume divided by the small volume. It is of course the same process that is used to determine SCR, except for the DCR, the large volume (DV large) is a much smaller value. And since the TDC volume (V small) was used for both SCR and DCR calculations, you can see how changing that TDC volume will change both types of compression ratio’s. They are linked by that “V small” value.

After crunching all the numbers, I ended up with an actual running engine compression ratio, or dynamic compression ratio (DCR) of 7.43 to 1. So, my two compression ratio numbers are:

Static Compression Ratio (SCR) = 10.75:1, which is the one seen on spec sheets
Dynamic Compression Ratio (DCR) = 7.43:1, which is the one the engine actually see’s/feel’s

You can see that the dynamic compression ratio is a far cry from the more commonly referenced static compression ratio of 10.75 to 1. This 7.43 DCR is what the engine actually see’s/feel’s and is what primarily determines its octane requirement. And as you have seen by now, the cam and its intake valve closing point, is the primary factor for determining an engine’s DCR. Change your cam, change you DCR.

If your Hotrod is on the ragged edge of detonating/pinging, you could switch to a cam with more duration, which will reduce your DCR and make the engine less sensitive to the octane it requires, because of a later intake closing point. That is just the opposite of what some folks might think. Because they’d likely think if their Hotrod was on the ragged edge of detonating/pinging, they’d need a milder cam. But, that would be going the “wrong” direction. Because a milder cam with less duration, would close the intake valve sooner, increasing the DCR. And that would make the engine even “more sensitive” to the octane it requires.

As an example, my cam has a 108* LSA (lobe separation angle), and the narrower this is, the sooner the intake valve closes, thus upping the DCR. And my cold cranking compression checked out to be 175 psi. But another very similar BBC engine with the same displacement and the same SCR, but with a wider 112* LSA, checked out to have only 165 psi cold cranking compression, due to its later intake valve closing, and thus lower DCR.

General approximate guidelines for DCR, though not absolute, are that a DCR of 7.5 to 8.5 will make best power for a street engine running 91 octane or higher. And the lower the DCR is in that range the better, for avoiding detonation problems.

Note: Race engines using race gas, can tolerate higher DCR’s up to about as high as 9:1.

As you can see, my 7.43 DCR came in quite close to the conservative 7.5 DCR number I had been targeting. I wanted to stay at the lower end of the recommended range so that my engine could tolerate California’s winter blend of pump premium, which has been known to fall below the octane number that we see with the summer blend. Call it adding a bit more margin of safety. Because detonation can cause ugly failures that you must avoid at all cost.

On top of that, I wanted to run a lot of ignition timing advance at low rpm, for crisp and quick throttle response. And staying at the lower end of the DCR range, allows me to do that without issue. It’s also no secret that larger engines, say upper 400 cubic inches and above, are big enough that they can absorb a low DCR and/or big cams with ease, so that you won’t even notice it.

BOTTOM LINE: The critical compression ratio that really counts, is the Dynamic Compression Ratio (DCR). OEM’s of course design their engines based on DCR. That’s why a lot of high performance, high rpm, factory stock engines with more cam duration and/or wider LSA’s (which results in a later intake valve closing), are running higher SCR’s, because that brings the DCR back into the desired range.

This lowering of the DCR, due to the late closing of the intake valve, is the reason why aftermarket Hotrod and Racing cam manufacturers spec a higher static compression ratio for their larger cams, because that gets the DCR into the proper range.

NOTE: HP = (Torque x rpm)/5252.

Little engines can make big HP, if you spin them to a high rpm. And in order to spin them to a high rpm, you need a large duration cam for the engine to breathe. But of course a large duration cam means a later closing intake valve, thus a lower DCR. So, you adjust the static compression ratio (SCR) to set the DCR to right where you want it. That allows you to have a very high performance engine that runs on ordinary pump gas. Here’s an example of just that:

The 2011 Yamaha YZF-R6 (600cc in-line 4 cylinder Sport Bike)

Its short 1.673” stroke allows it to rev to a 16,000 rpm redline, with only a 74.4 ft/sec average piston speed, while still being under the OEM limit of 80 ft/sec.

And it’s large duration cam that allows it to breathe enough to rev to 16,000 rpm, would have lowered the DCR unacceptably, except for the amazingly high 13.1 to 1 SCR which brings the DCR back up to an acceptable level. And the DCR is still set low enough so that even with the 13.1 SCR, it can still operate safely on ordinary pump premium gas.

After reading this, you may never look at the commonly referenced static compression ratio (SCR) the same way again. What is REALLY the most important compression ratio, is the Dynamic Compression Ratio (DCR). Because that is one of the primary factors determining how well your engine will run, and what its octane requirement will be.

540 RAT

.
====================

.

====================

.
8. 0W40 vs 5W30 vs 0W30

On the Corvette C6, Z06 Forum, perhaps the most popular oil the U.S. guys like to use is what they call, the 0W40 Euro blend Mobil 1. This oil is what GM calls for in the Owner’s Manual and also on the oil filler cap on C6 Z06’s sold in Canada and Europe, whereas 5W30 Mobil 1 is called for in the U.S. The rationale the U.S. Corvette owners typically use for choosing this 0W40 Euro blend Mobil 1 instead of following GM’s recommendation, is the thinking that this oil may have more zinc than U.S. oil, and their mistaken belief that more zinc and a higher viscosity can provide better wear protection, as well as their mistaken belief that 5W30 Mobil 1 is not very good.

Also, on “Bob is the Oil Guy” Forum, 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SL, European Formula, made in Germany and sold in the U.S., is very popular. This is apparently because they favor the better cold flowing 0W cold viscosity rating (which is a good idea), and because of the thinking that this oil may have more zinc than U.S. oil, and their mistaken belief that more zinc can provide better wear protection.

The Z06 guys as well as the Bob Forum guys, obviously feel this way based on emotion and guessing/speculation, because they clearly never had any test data to evaluate………………until now.

All this calls for performing Engineering Wear Protection testing those 0W40 and 5W30 Corvette Z06 oils, as well as testing 0W30 oils, to see how they all compare. Then Z06 owners and the Bob Forum guys can take a look at actual hard test data numbers that will show the facts. With that information in hand, they can make an informed decision when it comes to selecting an oil that will truly provide them with the best wear protection.

So, I tested the following motor oils:

0W40 and 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra

0W40, 5W30 and 0W30 Mobil 1

0W40, 5W30 and 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (in the black bottle)

NOTE: Castrol’s top of the line 100% Edge motor oil, comes in the gold bottle.

The Wear Protection reference categories are:

• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection

• 90,000 to 105,000 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

Here is how these oils ranked just among themselves, according to their Wear Protection Capability. All wear protection capability testing was performed at 230* F, and the higher the psi value, the better the wear protection. I also included values for the onset of thermal breakdown for comparison (the thermal breakdown values were rounded to the nearest 5* increment):

1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 115,612 psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 280* F

2. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 105,875 psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 265* F

3. 5W30 Castrol Edge w/Syntec, API SN (black bottle, formerly Castrol Syntec) synthetic = 85,179 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = TBD (I did not test this particular oil for this when I had it on hand)

4. 0W40 Mobil 1, API SN, European Formula, made in the U.S., synthetic = 82,644 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 285* F

5. 0W40 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN, synthetic = 81,863 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 260* F

6. 0W30 Mobil 1, API SN, Advanced Fuel Economy, synthetic = 81,240 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 290* F

7. 0W40 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SN, European Formula, made in Belgium and sold in the U.S., synthetic = 69,307 psi, which puts it in the MODEST wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 290* F

8. 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SL, European Formula, made in Germany and sold in the U.S., synthetic = 69,302 psi, which puts it in the MODEST wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 290* F

As you can see from these actual Engineering test values, all the 5W30 oils provide better wear protection than any of the 0W oils. But even so, any of these oils would be acceptable for normal daily driver use. However, for highly loaded High Performance applications where the best possible wear protection is desired, the obvious choice would be 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM or 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN, which are the only oils in this test that provide INCREDIBLE wear protection.

So, GM got it right about which oil to recommend in their U.S. Z06 Corvette’s. One can only speculate that perhaps they expect the U.S. cars to be run harder, so they call for the best protection in those engines. Although, general availability in Canada and Europe may also play a part in what oil they recommend. Whatever the case, both oil viscosities had to meet GM’s endurance testing requirements.

Folks can of course decide for themselves which oil they want to run in their own cars. But now, they have the accurate test data to make an informed decision.

NOTE: After this piece was originally written, 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API “SM” has been phased out and replaced TWICE by a newer API “SN” version. See the Wear Protection Ranking List in Section 1, for the current psi value and ranking position.

540 RAT

.

====================

.

====================

.
9. AFTERMARKET ZINC ADDITIVES – DO THEY WORK?

Do aftermarket zinc additives actually work? To find out, I tested ZDDPlus zinc additive in 3 low zinc oils, and I also tested Edelbrock Zinc additive in 3 different low zinc oils. In each case, the recommended amount of additive was used. And in all 6 cases, these high zinc additives ruined the oils and made them WORSE than they were before the extra zinc was added, by SIGNIFICANTLY reducing their wear protection capabilities. These additives did the opposite of what was promised. That is not surprising, because most major Oil Companies say to never add anything to their oils, because doing that will ruin the oil by upsetting the carefully balanced additive package that their Chemical Engineers designed into them. And that is precisely what was seen when using these high zinc additives.

So, do yourself a favor and don’t add any aftermarket zinc additives to your motor oil, because you will only make your oil’s wear protection capability WORSE than it was to begin with, no matter what anyone tells you.

Here are the results of that testing:

* This combination ranked 113 out of 129 oils tested: “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. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.

.
* This combination ranked 122 out of 129 oils tested: “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.

* This combination ranked 123 out of 129 oils tested: “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.

* This combination ranked 125 out of 129 oils tested: “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.

* This combination ranked 127 out of 129 oils tested: “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.

* This combination ranked 128 out of 129 oils tested: “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.

A motor oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package (where the extreme pressure anti-wear components are added to the base oil) “as a whole”, not just by the amount of zinc present. You will be best served by choosing a motor oil based on its wear protection capability, because zinc levels alone don’t mean a thing. In fact, MANY WIPED FLAT TAPPET LOBES COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, INCLUDING DURING BREAK-IN, if people had not blindly believed that all high zinc oils provide all the wear protection they need. Because nothing could be further from the truth. Engineering testing has proven over and over again, that some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils only provide poor wear protection. And without wear protection test data, you have no way of knowing which ones are good and which ones are not.

The outdated thinking that high zinc levels are needed, is simply Folklore not based on the facts. No one can prove that more zinc provides more wear protection, because it is simply not true. Plenty of people will swear that you need high levels of zinc, but ask them to provide “proof” instead of mere opinion. They cannot do it because Physics and Chemistry proves otherwise.

Even though aftermarket zinc additives failed in every test, there were a couple of other aftermarket additives that did in fact improve motor oil wear protection capability. Prolong significantly improved every motor oil it was tested in, and Oil Extreme Concentrate significantly improved lower ranked oils.

Bottom line: If you really want to provide your engine with the best possible wear protection, read my entire Oil Test Data Blog, then make your own decision. The engine you save, may be your own.

540 RAT

.

====================

.

====================

.
10. BREAK-IN OILS – DO WE REALLY NEED THEM?

First, a little background info so that we are all on the same page. The independent and unbiased Engineering testing I perform at a REPRESENTATIVE OPERATIONAL TEMPERATURE, to establish motor oil wear protection capability, is a dynamic friction test under load, similar to how an engine dyno test is a dynamic HP/Torque test under load. Both tests show how their subjects truly perform in the real world, no matter what brand names are involved, no matter what outrageous claims may have been made, and no matter what their spec sheets may say.

.
My Motor Oil Wear Protection Ranking List of over 150 different oils, is “proven” by the Physics and Chemistry involved, and it EXACTLY matches real world Track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance Street experience (test data validation doesn’t get any better than this). You can see the details on this, by going to the Oil Test Data Blog link below.

.
And the data used to create my Wear Protection Ranking List is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. The data, as mentioned above, is the result of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the testing. I am only the messenger. The Science is what tells us how these oils perform. And no reasonable person would try to argue with Physics and Chemistry. The fact is, motor oil wear protection capability is determined by the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the emphasis on the additive package, which is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, and NOT merely by how much zinc is present. The use of zinc as the primary extreme pressure anti-wear component is outdated technology. Modern extreme pressure anti-wear components are equal to or better than zinc, which is why many modern low zinc oils outperform many traditional high zinc oils.

.
So, think twice before believing anything the naysayers say when they try to discredit my Motor Oil Engineering Test Data. There are always some who try. They are not actually arguing with me, even if they think they are. They are actually arguing against Physics and Chemistry. Who do you think will win that battle? And ask them how they figure they know more than what the Science of Physics and Chemistry proves. Ask them what their qualifications are. Ask them what testing they have ever done.

.
They are typically high zinc lovers who just can’t accept the fact that what they’ve always believed about the need for high zinc oils, is only an Old Wives Tale MYTH. So, they get upset and go out of their way trying to undermine anything that goes against what they have been brainwashed to believe about high zinc oils. But, emotion does not determine how good any particular oil is. Factual Engineering tests have proven over and over again that zinc levels alone DO NOT determine an oil’s wear protection capability. The naysayers cannot back-up anything they say, but I back-up everything I say with hard Engineering test data that exactly matches real world experience.

.
My Test Data Blog now has over 95,000 views worldwide (at the time this was written). Of course simply listing the number of views by itself, is not intended to indicate validation of the test data (validation is shown throughout the Blog). But, indicating the number of views does show that an enormous number of people worldwide recognize the value, understand the importance, and make use of the motor oil test data FACTS included there, that cannot be found anywhere else. And as a result, they are posting and sharing links to my Blog, all over the world. See for yourself. A link is provided at the end of this posting.

*****

Now, on with Break-In Oil information.

.
So-called Break-In oils are typically hyped by claiming they provide for quick ring seating while providing extra wear protection for other parts. Of course no oil can be formulated to “allow” the wear of only certain parts, AND to “prevent” the wear of other parts, at the same time. It has to be formulated for one or the other, which we will see below.

.
When impossible Marketing claims like that are made, it is only to sell product, no matter what the truth really is. Many would call that blatant false advertising, which motor oils are famous for. The absolute best oils and the absolute worst oils all make the same claim about how great they are. Until my wear protection capability test data became available, buyers had no way of knowing which oils actually live up to those claims and which ones don’t. Because we now know that looking at the zinc level alone, is absolutely worthless, and tells you nothing about an oil’s wear protection capability.
Let’s take a look at component quantities of several Break-In Oils, from the Lab Tests performed by ALS Tribology in Sparks, Nevada.

Lucas 30 wt Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 1104 ppm
TBN = 5.9
This oil has by far, the highest level of zinc/phos I have ever come across. It has way more than twice the amount of zinc that begins to CAUSE wear/damage. Because of that, the extremely low level of TBN, and the extremely low level of detergent, this oil should be used for only a very short time, as a Break-In oil would suggest.

Comp Cams 10W30 Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm
moly = 180 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 4234 ppm
TBN = 14.7
This oil also has by far, way too much zinc/phos. It has way more than enough zinc to begin causing wear/damage, rather than prevent it. Because of that, this oil also should be used for only a very short time, as a Break-In oil would suggest.

Edelbrock 30 wt Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm
moly = 4 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 3452 ppm
TBN = 10.6
This oil is manufactured for Edelbrock by Torco.

.
Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 1170 ppm
phos = 1039 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 3184 ppm
TBN = 9.8

As you can see above, there is absolutely no consistency at all, between the Break-In oils that were fomulated by these various Oil Companies. These oils are all over the place and bouncing off the walls. We see zinc from 1170 ppm to 4483 ppm. We see phos from 1039 ppm to 3660 ppm. We see detergent levels from 1104 ppm to 4234 ppm. And we see TBN values from 5.9 to 14.7. WOW!!! These oils couldn’t be much more different, and yet they are all aimed at the EXACT SAME Break-In oil market. It makes you wonder if these Oil Companies have any idea what they are doing, and if they even test these oils to see what they can really do.

So, let’s take a look at the wear protection these oils and several other Break-In oils, actually provide, and see how they rank just among themselves, according to their “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” psi value. This data will tell us once and for all, what the Oil Companies would not, and that is, whether the oils are formulated to “allow” wear or “prevent” wear.

.
The Wear Protection reference categories are:

• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection

• 90,000 to 105,000 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

The higher the psi , the better the Wear Protection

1.  30wt Amsoil Break-In Oil conventional = 78,192 psi
zinc = 2051 ppm
phos = 1917 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

.
2.  30wt Edelbrock Break-In Oil conventional = 69,160 psi
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm
moly = 4 ppm

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

.
4. Crane Cams 10W40 Break-In Oil, conventional = 62,603 psi
zinc = TBD, but bottle claims high zinc formula
phos =  TBD
moly = TBD

.
5.  30wt Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, Break-In Oil, conventional = 56,020 psi
zinc = TBD, but the bottle claims high zinc
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

.
6.  10W30 Comp Cams Break-In Oil, conventional = 51,749 psi
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm
moly = 180 ppm

.
7. 15W50 Joe Gibbs Driven BR Break-In oil, conventional = 51,299 psi
NOTE: Total Seal also sells this Break-In Oil with their label on it.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

.
8.  30wt Lucas Break-In Oil, conventional = 49,455 psi
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm
moly = 3 ppm

.
9.  5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven BR30 Break-In Oil, conventional = 47,483 psi
NOTE: Total Seal also sells this Break-In Oil with their label on it.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

.
Anyone who has followed my previous oil tests, knows that the wear protection capability psi values provided by most of these Break-In oils is quite low overall. Only the Amsoil made it into the GOOD WEAR PROTECTION category (75,000 to 90,000 psi). Edelbrock, Royal Purple and Crane Cams oils made it into the MODEST WEAR PROTECTION category (60,000 to 75,000 psi), while the Brad Penn, Comp Cams, Lucas and both Joe Gibbs Break-In oils managed only the UNDESIRABLE PROTECTION category (below 60,000 psi).

In comparison, the highest ranking oil (with no aftermarket additives) on my Wear Protection Ranking List, is 5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic = 112,464 psi, with a zinc level of 1724 ppm. That oil provides FAR GREATER wear protection capability than even the top ranked Amsoil Break-In oil here. And it provides nearly 2 1/2 times as much wear protection as the lowest ranked Joe Gibbs Break-In oil here.

So, now we finally know that because of their low wear protection capabilities, these Break-In oils are formulated only to allow wear, and are NOT formulated to provide a high level of wear protection. Of course it was impossible for them to be capable of both things at the same time, in spite of their advertising claims. And without the type of dynamic wear testing performed here, we would have never known what these Break-In oils were truly formulated for.

Every oil test I’ve performed, showed that the level of zinc has nothing to do with an oil’s wear protection capability, nor its ranking against other oils. And we’ve seen it yet again here, that high zinc levels do NOT always provide better wear protection. In fact, the ULTRA HIGH zinc Lucas Break-In oil, ended up in next to last place in wear protection capability for this group of Break-In oils.

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. And they all produced test results of at least 90,000 psi, which put them all in the “INCREDIBLE or OUTSTANDING WEAR PROTECTION” categories.

.
5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic = 112,464 psi
zinc = 1724 ppm
phosphorus = 1547 ppm
moly = 481 ppm

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

.
5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic = 104,487 psi
zinc = 1610 ppm
phosphorus = 1496 ppm
moly = 0 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
moly = 3 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

As you’ve seen above in the poor performing high zinc break-in oils and immediately above in the excellent performing high zinc non-break-in oils, the zinc levels completely overlap among all those poor performing and excellent performing oils. So, that is absolute proof once and for all, that you simply CANNOT predict an oil’s wear protection capability based on its zinc level alone.

.
Now the brainwashed high zinc believers have ironclad data to show them that everything they have always believed about only needing to look at zinc levels, is total nonsense. Zinc levels alone are completely worthless. Only film strength/load carrying capability from dynamic wear testing under load, can tell us which oils provide good wear protection and which oils don’t. If the high zinc believers don’t grasp the value of this information, then they will never be able to select the best possible oil for their needs.

.
A fair number of people have been able to get away with using these poor performing Break-In oils in high performance flat tappet engines without a problem. But, they typically were only able to do that with these oils by following elaborate and worrisome break-in procedures. Those break-in procedures typically include removal of the inner valve springs, to reduce the pressure between the lobes and lifters. They also typically follow the routine of keeping the engine at around 2,500 rpm for 20 minutes, etc, etc. Everything they do as part of their elaborate and nerve wracking break-in procedure, is only a crutch to prevent wiping lobes because these break-in oils provide such poor wear protection. But, if high ranking oils were selected instead, and used for Break-In, people wouldn’t have to go through all that, because NO elaborate break-in procedures would be required with those far superior high ranking oils.

.
People think they have to go through all this break-in agony, because they assume parts quality isn’t that high, even when using parts from reputable Industry leading companies. They never even consider for a moment that their beloved high zinc oils are to blame. But, as you can see above, these break-in oils show that they put flat tappet engines at serious risk of failure, because of their poor wear protection capability, even though they have high zinc levels. People typically believe they are getting sufficient wear protection because of all that zinc, from what the bottles and/or websites claim. But, now we know that the hype about great wear protection was nothing more than false advertising snake oil. These oils are formulated only to allow wear, by having low wear protection capability, in spite of their high zinc levels.

.
And that is precisely why there are still so many flat tappet wiped lobe engine failures at break-in and shortly thereafter. When people use these poor performing break-in oils, in flat tappet engines, they are simply playing Russian Roulette with their engines. They may be OK, or they may suffer engine failure. It’s extremely iffy, because the margin of safety is about zero with these oils. But, it does NOT have to be that way if a highly ranked oil is chosen instead.

.
It’s a similar situation where a fair number of people have managed to get away with using low zinc oils with aftermarket zinc additives added into those oils, for breaking-in high performance flat tappet engines. Some people were able to squeak by with this type of oil concoction that also provides only minimal wear protection capability. But, quite a few people have experienced wiped lobe engine failure doing this. These people also “thought” they were getting outstanding wear protection, from what those zinc additive bottles and/or websites claimed. But, Engineering test data has proven over and over again, that simply having high zinc levels, is no guarantee of having sufficient wear protection.

.
I tested the zinc additives “ZDDPlus” which added a whopping 1848 ppm zinc when added at the recommended quantity, and “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” which added 573 ppm zinc when added at the recommended quantity. Each zinc additive was tested in two full synthetic oils and one conventional oil. And in EVERYONE of the six test oils, the wear protection capability DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY.

.
The “ZDDPlus” caused a drop of about 25% on average, and the “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” caused a drop of about 34% on average. The oils with the “ZDDPlus” ended up having a “Load carrying capacity/Film strength” of only 58,855 psi on average. And the oils with the “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” ended up having a “Load carrying capacity/Film strength” of only 51,930 psi on average. That puts them into the UNDESIRABLE PROTECTION category (below 60,000 psi). So, the wear protection capability of these oil concoctions, was right in the exact same range as most of the Break-In oils tested here. Oil Companies have typically said to NEVER add anything to motor oil, because doing that will ruin an oil’s carefully balanced additive package and its resulting chemical properties. And they were absolutely correct, because that is precisely what the test data showed.

.
It’s also a similar situation where a fair number of people have managed to get away with using Diesel oils for breaking-in high performance flat tappet engines. They were able to squeak by with Diesel oil even though these oils also provide only minimal wear protection capability, which puts their engines at a substantial risk of failure. These folks “thought” they were getting outstanding wear protection. But, I tested 13 different popular conventional and synthetic Diesel oils, including the “OLD” Rotella, and they had a “Load carrying capacity/Film strength” of only 72,408 psi on average, putting them in the MODEST PROTECTION category (60,000 to 75,000 psi). This wear protection capability puts them right at the upper range of the Break-In oils tested here.

.
To summarize, most of the Break-In oils, the low zinc oils with aftermarket zinc added to them, and the Diesel oils, provided about the same level of modest to undesirable wear protection in gasoline engines. And that makes most of them a risky proposition for use as Break-In oils.

.
This points out that all the effort, including elaborate break-in procedures, that people go through with these motor oils, in order to prevent wiped lobes in High Performance flat tappet engines, is misguided because these oils DO NOT provide the best wear protection in the first place. There are far better motor oil choices readily available.

.
Many people probably have a gut feeling that whatever Break-In oil they use, should not be overly protective against wear, so that components can break-in quickly. That’s why you often hear people say to break-in an engine with conventional oil, then later switch to synthetic, even though they aren’t aware that an oil being conventional or synthetic does not determine its wear protection capability.

.
But, then the flat tappet guys often want to have max protection against wear to avoid wiped lobes. So, they will then often choose conventional oil with high levels of zinc, “falsely believing” that will help increase the oil’s wear protection. But, as mentioned many times before, “wear testing” and “lab testing” have ALWAYS shown that the level of zinc does NOT determine an oil’s wear protection capability. No more than the level of gas in your tank determines how much HP your engine makes.

.
We’ve only looked at the “lower end” of the spectrum of Break-In oils, which are formulated to allow break-in wear. But, since things just aren’t that simple, let’s also take a look at the “upper” end of the spectrum of Break-In oils. Consider the following facts.

.
Countless thousands of brand new Performance cars have come off the production line, factory filled with full synthetic motor oil. We’ve seen this for years in both domestic and import Performance Cars. Perhaps the most commonly known is the full synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1 that comes in High Performance GM vehicles. Also the Ford GT Sports Car of a few years back, as well as Ford’s Supercharged Shelby GT500 Mustangs, came factory filled with full synthetic 5W50 Motorcraft oil.

.
That full synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN oil ranks in the top 10% of all the oils I’ve tested, with a “Load carrying capacity/Film strength” value of 105,875 psi. And the full synthetic 5W50 Motorcraft, API SN oil also ranks in the top 10% of all the oils I’ve tested, with a “Load carrying capacity/Film strength” value of 103,517 psi. With the extremely impressive wear protection capability provided by these oils, if any oils would interfere with ring seal and proper break-in wear overall, these oils would be the ones to do it. But, that is simply not a problem, and of course these vehicles all come with a normal factory warranty.

CONCLUSION:

We know that countless High Performance factory engines, both 2 valve and 4 valve, have nicely broken-in for many, many years with NO ring sealing problems what so ever, using various oils with high wear protection capability. In addition to that, using oils with excellent wear protection capability, has worked perfectly fine for breaking-in in traditional High Performance flat tappet engines, and have proven that NO elaborate break-in procedures are required at all. You can simply fire the engine and drive the car with no drama and no worries. Try doing that with the poor performing high zinc Break-In oils.

.
So, why would anyone ever believe that you need so-called Break-In Oils with poor their wear protection capability, when these oils are simply NOT needed for ring seal (properly built engines will seal/seat their rings almost immediately no matter what oil is used), and they put High Performance flat tappet engines at serious risk of wiped lobe engine failure? Plus, they require elaborate break-in procedures if there is any hope at all of getting away with using these poor performing oils. Bottom Line: So-called Break-In oils are simply not necessary and can also put flat tappet engines at serious risk.

.
If you wondered how those factory full synthetic oils with “high wear protection capability” and how any other synthetic or conventional oil with “high wear protection capability”, can still allow proper break-in, here’s the answer. Newly manufactured parts will have a surface that “microscopically” looks like peaks and valleys. The loading on those tiny little peaks, will be EXTREMELY high, because the load is not spread out across enough surface area to support the load. And no motor oil ever made by man can stop those peaks from being very quickly worn down, thus leaving a smoother surface that will distribute the load across a surface area large enough to support that load. And that is precisely what happens during actual break-in wear. So, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE  to stop break-in wear, no matter how hard we try. And that is a good thing, because we want that initial break-in wear, so that our part interfaces are nicely mated to each other in order to support the loads involved.

.
Engine break-in is NOT Rocket Science. You just need to make a wise choice when selecting the motor oil to use. At the end of the day, here’s what I recommend:

.
* For traditional flat tappet engines, no matter how wicked they may be – use a highly ranked oil from my Wear Protection Ranking list, no matter how much zinc is in it, for break-in to protect against wiped lobes, and a side benefit is that no elaborate break-in procedures will be necessary. Then continue to use the same oil after break-in. NOTE: This recommendation also applies to any other non-roller type engine.

.
* For traditional roller lifter engines – since they don’t have flat tappet lifter/lobe interfaces, their break-in is not as critical as it is for flat tappet engines. So, you can pretty much use any oil you have sitting around, and it won’t make any particular difference for break-in. However, with that said, I would still recommend using a highly ranked oil from my Wear Protection Ranking list, no matter how much zinc is in it, for break-in. Because roller engines still have various component interfaces that can benefit from using oils that provide excellent wear protection. Then continue to use the same oil after break-in. NOTE: This recommendation also applies to any other roller type engine.

.
No matter what anyone tells you, the same oil can be used just fine for both break-in and after break-in. These above recommendations have proven to work very well in the real world, while providing excellent protection for your engine.

.
Other points I’d suggest are:

.
• Always prime an engine, making sure that oil is coming out of all rockers, right before first fire.

.
• Use a thinner oil such as 5W30 or 10W30, rather than something thicker. Because thinner oil will flow quicker/better. And flow is lubrication. Also quicker/better flow will get oil to all components sooner which is very important to prevent unnecessary wear during cold start-up. And the quicker/better flow of thinner oil, will also carry away heat quicker/better than what thicker oils can. Remember that engine internal parts are DIRECTLY oil cooled, but only INDIRECTLY water cooled.

.
• And the last thing is to change the oil soon after initial break-in, to get rid of all the contaminants that will be present right after first firing a brand new engine.

*****

Here is a Testimonial that was sent to me in February 2019, from one of my Blog readers:

540 RAT,

About 14 months ago I picked your brain on some oil recommendations regarding a new hydraulic flat tappet cam for my small block Chevy. I promised I’d update you on my results. I used the 0W40 Mobil 1 European blend in my engine as recommended. I did the prelube of the engine etc as well as lubricated the new camshaft (Howard’s). I fired it up and never did the nonsensical 30 minutes of 2500 rpm to break the cam in, per your recommendation. I have 5000 miles on the motor and just tore it down to inspect it (I built a 383 to replace my small 327) and mic’d my cam lobes. Son of a b you were right! I was so nervous but never had a problem with the cam.

To be clear I had installed several cams in the past and was ignorant to the whole cam break in process. I grew up in a race shop and the engine builders there would put one together and throw it in a car and would go 200 laps at WOT. I never had a cam wiped and never was remotely concerned until seeing it online. Anyone reading this should consider using a high psi oil that 540 RAT tests and relax. To be fair, Howard’s parkerizes all cams and that’s supposed to help wear, but all cams prior to this cam were from Comp and Lunati and they were NOT parkerized.

Thanks for talking me off the ledge in 2017 lol. I needed some reassurance and you provided it. LISTEN TO THIS MAN!

Thanks again, M. P.

*****

540 RAT

.

=====================

.

=====================

.
11. CAN YOU ALWAYS COUNT ON HIGH ZINC MOTOR OIL?

Can you always count on high zinc motor oil to provide the most desirable wear protection? To find out, I performed Engineering “Wear Protection Capability” testing on a group 40 different high zinc oils to see how high zinc oils compare among themselves. And the fact is, not all high zinc oils provide the same wear protection. See below for details:

Wear protection reference categories are:

• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection

• 90,000 to 105,000 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

The higher the psi number, the better the wear protection.

1. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
phos = 3489 ppm
ZDDP= 3000 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

2. 10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
phos = 1518 ppm
ZDDP = 1500 ppm
NOTE: Due to its very low TBN value, this oil is only suitable for short term racing use, and is not suitable for street use.

3. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phos = 1544 ppm
ZDDP = 1500 ppm

4. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phos = 1112 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

5. 30 wt Red Line Race Oil synthetic = 96,470 psi
zinc = 2207 ppm
phos = 2052 ppm
ZDDP = 2100 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

6. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
ZDDP = 1400 ppm

7. 10W30 Quaker State Defy, API SL semi-synthetic = 90,226 psi
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm
ZDDP = 1000 ppm

8. 10W30 Joe Gibbs HR4 Hotrod Oil synthetic = 86,270 psi
zinc = 1247 ppm
phos = 1137 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

9. 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
ZDDP = 1500 ppm

10. 5W30 Lucas API SM synthetic = 76,584 psi
zinc = 1134 ppm
phos = 666 ppm
ZDDP = 900 ppm

11. 5W50 Castrol Edge with Syntec API SN, synthetic, formerly Castrol Syntec, black bottle = 75,409 psi
zinc = 1252 ppm
phos = 1197 ppm
ZDDP = 1200 ppm

12. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) synthetic = 74,860 psi
zinc = 1421 ppm
phos = 1338 ppm
ZDDP = 1300 ppm

13. 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
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

14. 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
ZDDP = 1300 ppm

15. 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
ZDDP = 1600 ppm

16. 15W40 Farm Rated Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ (conventional) = 73,176 psi
zinc = 1325ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
ZDDP = 1200 ppm

17. 15W40 “NEW” 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
ZDDP = 1200 ppm

18. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 (semi-synthetic) = 71,377 psi
zinc = 1621 ppm
phos = 1437 ppm
ZDDP = 1500 ppm

19. 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
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

20. 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 (semi-synthetic) = 71,206 psi
zinc = 1557 ppm
phos = 1651 ppm
ZDDP = 1600 ppm

21. 15W50 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 70,235 psi
zinc = 1133 ppm
phos = 1,168 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

22. 30wt Edelbrock Break-In Oil conventional = 69,160 psi
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm
ZDDP = 1500 ppm

23. 10W40 Edelbrock synthetic = 68,603 psi
zinc = 1193 ppm
phos = 1146 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

24. 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
ZDDP = 1300 ppm

25. 10W30 Royal Purple HPS (High Performance Street) synthetic = 66,211 psi
zinc = 1774 ppm
phos = 1347 ppm
ZDDP = 1500 ppm

26. 10W40 Valvoline 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil conventional, API SJ = 65,553 psi
zinc = 1154 ppm
phos = 1075 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

27. 5W30 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL synthetic = 64,175 psi
zinc = 1765 ppm
phos = 2468 ppm
ZDDP = 2100 ppm

28. “ZDDPlus” added to Royal Purple 20W50, API SN, synthetic = 63,595 psi
zinc = 2436 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2053 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
ZDDP = 2200 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.

29. Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil conventional = 62,931 psi
zinc = 1170 ppm
phos = 1039 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

30. 10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil, conventional = 62,538 psi
zinc = 2116 ppm
phos = 1855 ppm
ZDDP = 1900 ppm

31. 10W30 Comp Cams Muscle Car & Street Rod Oil, synthetic blend = 60,413 psi
zinc = 1673 ppm
phos = 1114 ppm
ZDDP = 1300 ppm

32. 10W40 Torco TR-1 Racing Oil with MPZ conventional = 59,905 psi
zinc = 1456 ppm
phos = 1150 ppm
ZDDP = 1300 ppm

33. “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)
ZDDP = 2400 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.

34. 10W40 Summit Racing Premium Racing Oil, API SL conventional = 59,483 psi
zinc = 1764 ppm
phos = 1974 ppm
Claimed ZDDP level on the bottle = 1800 ppm
NOTE: Summit discontinued this line of oil, as of spring of 2013.

35. “ZDDPlus” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 56,243 psi
zinc = 2955 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2114 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
ZDDP = 2500 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.

36. “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)
ZDDP = 1400 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.

37. 10W30 Comp Cams Break-In Oil conventional = 51,749 psi
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm
ZDDP = 2800 ppm

38. “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)
ZDDP = 1400 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.

39. “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)
ZDDP = 1400 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.

40. 30wt Lucas Break-In Oil conventional = 49,455 psi
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm
ZDDP = 4000 ppm

So, as you saw above, the highest ranking high zinc oil that provided the BEST WEAR PROTECTION of this group of 40 high zinc oils, had 3000 ppm ZDDP. But, the lowest ranking high zinc oil had one third MORE ZDDP at 4000 ppm. Even though this lowest ranked oil had far more zinc in it, it provided LESS THAN HALF AS MUCH WEAR PROTECTION, making it by far the worst of all 40 oils tested. Then the 4th place oil had only 1100 ppm ZDDP, and the 7th place oil had only 1000 ppm ZDDP.

So, the results above show:

1. My tester and test procedure have no problem at all showing excellent performing high zinc oils. The fact is, my oil testing performs worst case torture testing on motor oil. So, an oil HAS TO BE GOOD to produce good results. And we saw that many high zinc oils produced excellent results here.

2. This is ABSOLUTE PROOF that not all high zinc oils have equal wear protection capabilities. And why would anyone think that all high zinc oils are good? Not all tires are good. Not all cylinder heads are good. Not all camshafts are good. The world just doesn’t work that way. Some high zinc oils are quite good and provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils are not good at all, and provide rather poor wear protection. It just depends on the particular oil in question. And that makes it totally clear here, that you simply CANNOT predict an oil’s wear protection capability by looking only at its zinc level. Life is just NOT that simple. If you only look at zinc levels, that is no better than guessing. So, if anyone tells you that you need high levels of zinc for more wear protection, even if it comes from a Cam Company, don’t believe a word of it. Because as you can see above, they have no idea what they are talking about. Would you really want to use the 40th ranked last place oil simply because it has more zinc than the number one ranked oil here? That is just what you’d be doing if you believed the incorrect advice about only looking at zinc levels. In fact, MANY WIPED FLAT TAPPET LOBES COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, INCLUDING DURING BREAK-IN, if people had not blindly believed that all high zinc oils provide all the wear protection they need. Because nothing could be further from the truth.

3. A motor oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the emphasis on its additive package which is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, and NOT simply by how much zinc is present. The ONLY way to know for sure how much wear protection any given oil can provide, is to look at “dynamic wear testing under load” results, such as I have provided above.

My motor oil testing, is very similar in concept to dyno testing an engine. An engine dyno test is also dynamic testing under load. For the guys who just want to look at a motor oil zinc level reference chart, that is like looking at an engine’s build sheet instead of its dyno print out. Which do you think has more value?

For actual motor oil facts, go to the link at the bottom, and read my entire motor oil testing write-up, then decide for yourself what you want to believe. Actual test data facts, or the common high zinc MYTH? The engine you save, may be your own.

540 RAT

.
==================

.

==================

.
12. DIESEL OIL – IS IT THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE GASOLINE ENGINES?

Before we get into the eye-opening Diesel oil test data, let’s take a look at some fundamental aspects of motor oil wear protection, so that we are all on the same page. The amount of misinformation and misunderstanding about motor oil is absolutely mind boggling, even though the basic technology of motor oil is NOT Rocket Science. It is simply unbelievable how much COMPLETELY WRONG information is out there on the Internet and on the various Forums.

And of course once wrong information has been repeated countless times, it becomes fact as far as most people know, even though it is completely worthless. But, you really can’t blame folks for not knowing any better. Because in addition to a ton of bad information being out there, motor oil advertising hype is often misleading or downright false, almost no one ever tests anything to know for sure what is true and what is not, aftermarket companies sell bogus oil additive products, including zinc additives, that only wreck an oil’s chemical properties, and any test data outside of the oil companies themselves, is virtually impossible to find ANYWHERE……………until now.

If you are interested in seeing the FACTS from real world independent and unbiased Engineering Test Data on motor oil, then the information below is for you.

“THE” single most common misunderstanding about motor oil is that higher zinc levels provide better wear protection. That has been repeated over and over again so many times over the years, that people just assume it is correct. But the fact is, that thinking is COMPLETELY FALSE.

Here are the FACTS:

Zinc is used/sacrificed in very small quantities at time, so the total amount present in your oil does not change how much wear protection the oil provides, as long as you don’t run out of zinc. “Lab Testing” and “Wear Testing” analysis proves/confirms that more zinc provides LONGER wear protection, NOT MORE wear protection. This is not a new discovery. In fact, 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.

An analogy for the zinc level in motor oil would be the amount of gas in your tank. Gas is also used in very small quantities at a time. So, if you have a quarter of a tank or a full tank, it does NOT change how much power your engine makes, as long as you don’t run out of gas. More gas provides LONGER running time, NOT more power. It’s the same type of idea regarding the amount of zinc in motor oil.

Zinc is used as an extreme pressure, anti-wear additive. 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 does NOT 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 proven/confirmed by analysis of new and used oil lab test results. And the literature from the “ZDDPlus” zinc additive folks says the exact same thing, if you’d also like to see it there. On top of that, excessively HIGH zinc levels can lead to INCREASED wear/damage and cast iron erosion. 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 ALWAYS 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 modern LOW zinc oils, produce outstanding results in the wear testing. I’ve also had HIGH zinc oils as well as LOW zinc oils that produced only modest results in the wear testing.

And this brings us to the second most common misunderstanding about motor oil, which is that modern API certified motor oils cannot provide adequate wear protection for flat tappet cam lobe/lifter interfaces. This has also been repeated over and over again so many times over the years, that people just assume it is correct. But the fact is, that thinking is also COMPLETELY FALSE.

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. There is nothing magical or sacred about zinc. It is just one of a number of motor oil additive package components that can be used for extreme pressure anti-wear purposes. The other components that are typically Oil Company proprietary secrets, can be added to, or used in place of zinc. 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, and have even EXCEEDED the protection provided by many high zinc oils.

So, modern low zinc oils CAN BE USED SAFELY with flat tappet cam setups, even in engines with radical cams and high spring pressures. Simply choose from the higher ranked oils on the list at the end of this write-up, and you’ll be good to go. I know people who’ve been using modern low zinc oils in High Performance flat tappet set-ups for a long time, and they’ve had no issue at all.

On a side note:
Whatever you do, DO NOT add aftermarket zinc additives to low zinc oils. Because I did testing on this exact situation and found that adding zinc to low zinc oils, ruins an oil’s chemical properties and SIGNIFICANTLY reduces its wear protection capability. The Oil Companies always say to “never add anything” to their oil. Believe them, because they know what they are talking about. After all, they are the experts on their own products.

So, back to the topic at hand:
Just looking at an oil’s spec sheet to see how much zinc is present, tells you ABOLUTLELY NOTHING about how well that oil can provide wear protection. To only look at the zinc level to try and predict an oil’s wear protection capability would be much like looking at your gas gauge to predict how much power your engine will make. That kind of thinking simply makes no sense at all. So, throw away that useless motor oil zinc quantity reference list. In other words, forget about zinc. The ONLY THING that matters, and the ONLY WAY to tell how well an oil can prevent wear, is to perform some type of dynamic WEAR TESTING that is done at representative temperatures. And that is exactly what I’ve done here.

The test equipment used here to perform this kind of testing, focuses on an oil’s “load carrying capacity or film strength”, and for good reason. THE single most CRITICAL capability of any motor oil is its film strength. Everything 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, mechanical fuel pump pushrod tip/cam eccentric interfaces and other highly loaded engine component interfaces. The higher an oil’s film strength, the better your engine is protected 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 hot 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 oil 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 remaining oil’s film strength. That makes it another very important reason why an excellent film strength is highly desirable.

When Amsoil refers to wear scar size comparisons on their website, they are referencing oil film strength test data. A few 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, API SM advertised 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 LIQUIDS are INCOMPRESSIBLE, which of course is how hydraulics work. But, that refers to 100% PURE LIQUID with no air bubbles what so ever. And the nature of liquids being “incompressible”, is a basic FACT of Physics.

So, since liquid oil CANNOT be compressed, there can be NO metal to metal contact, THUS NO WEAR OR DAMAGE. This means that ALL oils when in “incompressible liquid form”, provide the SAME level of wear protection. And it does not matter if they cost one dollar per quart, or twenty dollars per quart. Nor does it matter how much zinc/phos is present.

For example, the normal flow of oil between the crank journals and rod or main bearings, is “liquid” oil. And the “liquid” oil in that hydrodynamic wedge is incompressible, just like any liquid is. For a crank journal to ever touch the bearings, the oil has to be reduced to only a film, and that film has to be PENETRATED. Because of course, to achieve metal to metal contact, and thus wear/damage, you have to go THROUGH the oil’s film strength to get there.

If conditions cause a 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. And this is PRECISELY why we perform OIL FILM STRENGTH testing. 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 protection, no matter how much zinc is present.

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 “wear testing” was to test oils directly against each other, head to head, back to back, at a representative operating temperature. Then see how they stacked up against each other.

For example, if oil “A” has a 110,000 psi “load carrying capacity/film strength” (no matter how much zinc is present) in this test, and oil “B” has only a 65,000 psi “load carrying capacity/film strength” (no matter how much zinc is present) in this test, it’s not hard to understand the fact that oil “A” with its WHOPPING 70% HIGHER CAPABILITY, will provide a MUCH HIGHER level of reserve wear protection in a running engine as well (no matter how much zinc is present).

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 real world test comparison allows you to test a large number 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.

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.

So, in the end, it just depends on how much margin of safety an individual is comfortable with for his particular engine combo. The whole point of all my oil testing, is having the data to make an informed choice when it comes to choosing the best motor oil.

I did this testing only for my own knowledge, because there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding about motor oil. 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.

So, there is no Snake Oil pitch going on here. And I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, I’m only sharing my test data results. People can embrace my data or ignore it. That of course is totally up to them. So, run whatever oil you like, but now you’ll have the data to see how oils rank, relative to each other.

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.

DIESEL OIL TESTING

I always found it a bit curious that some folks would use Diesel oil in High Performance gasoline engines, rather than the more obvious high quality gas engine oils. I assumed they figured that Diesel oils had higher zinc levels which most folks “mistakenly thought” was needed. Or maybe they figured if that oil works well for hard working Diesel engines, then it should work for their gas engines as well. But, other than some lab test reports showing zinc quantities, I haven’t seen much real data on any of that.

Is it possible that the Diesel oil fans somehow know more than the Oil Companies’ Chemical Engineers and Chemists? But, based on only a casual overview, the value of using Diesel oil in gas engines seemed to be mostly just folklore that had been repeated over and over, without any real data to support that. So, since I’ve been performing a lot of motor oil testing this year, I thought is was time to do some extensive testing on Diesel oil, to see once and for all, just what the Diesel oil hype is all about.

So, finally, on with the Diesel Oil test data:
*** The higher the psi result, the higher the “Load carrying capacity/Film strength”, and the better the oil is at preventing wear.

*** All oils were tested at 230* F (representative of actual running temperature).

*** Multiple tests were performed on each oil, and those results were averaged to arrive at each oil’s final value shown below.

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

*** All oil bottles 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.

*** All the oils here are current new oils, recently purchased, except for the unopened OLD Rotella T mentioned above.

*** The onset of “Thermal Breakdown” is determined by the temperature at which the oil begins to smoke/vaporize. This indicates that the lighter components in the oil are beginning to boil off, which changes the oil’s chemical composition for the worse. Always keep your oil below the point of thermal breakdown. If your oil does get too hot, then change it at your earliest convenience.

*** Lab Testing for component quantities shown below, was performed by ALS Tribology (formerly Staveley Labs) in Sparks, Nevada.

*** Diesel engine oils have C-type API certification rating designations. The “C” is in reference to “C”ompression ignition engines.
Gas engine oils have S-type API certification rating designations. The “S” is in reference to “S”park ignition engines.

Here are the 13 Diesel Oils that were tested. And they are ranked in the order of their “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” values:

1. RED LINE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF-4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 85,663 psi
zinc = 1615 ppm
phos = 1551 ppm
moly = 173 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 2999 ppm
TBN = 8.3
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 285*

2. ROYAL PURPLE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4 /SM, CI-4 PLUS, CH-4, CI-4
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 76,997 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = TBD
TBN = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 265*

3. MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4 and ACEA E7
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 74,312 psi
zinc = 1211 ppm
phos = 1168 ppm
moly = 2 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 1596 ppm
TBN = 9.3
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 270*

4. CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, SM, SL, “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 73,520 psi
zinc = 1519 ppm
phos = 1139 ppm
moly = 80 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 2205 ppm
TBN = 8.0
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 265*

5. MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4/SM, SL , “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 73,300 psi
zinc = 1297 ppm
phos = 944 ppm
moly = 46 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 1843 ppm
TBN = 9.8
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 250*

6. Farm Rated 15W40 Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, conventional, API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 73,176 psi
zinc = 1325 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 2 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 1593 ppm
TBN = 9.3
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 255*

7. SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4,CF/SM
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 72,022 psi
zinc = 1454 ppm
phos = 1062 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 2886 ppm
TBN = 9.1
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 250*
NOTE: This new Rotella T has SIGNIFICANTLY MORE zinc than the OLD Rotella T, NOT LESS as is often claimed. And these two Rotella oils were Lab tested more than a month apart. So, their component quantities had no chance of being mixed up. This new Rotella’s wear protection capability is just slightly BETTER than the OLD Rotella. Therefore, the new Rotella is NOT the junk some have claimed.

8. “OLD” SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 71,214 psi
zinc = 1171 ppm
phos = 1186 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 2715 ppm
TBN = 10.1
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 250*
NOTE: There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING special about this OLD Rotella, as so many have always claimed. That was only folklore. It is simply ordinary Diesel oil.

9. VALVOLINE PREMIUM BLUE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SM
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 70,869 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = TBD
TBN = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 255*

10. CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, SL, SM,
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 69,631 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = TBD
TBN = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 255*

11. SHELL ROTELLA T6, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4/SM
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 67,804 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = TBD
TBN = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 260*

12. LUCAS 15W40 MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SL
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 66,476 psi
zinc = 1441 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 76 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 3393 ppm
TBN = 11.7
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 250*

13. CASTROL GTX DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4/SN
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 66,323 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge TBD
TBN = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 265*

The average value for Thermal Breakdown among the conventional Diesel oils here, was 255*, which is 17* LOWER than among the conventional gas engine oils I’ve tested.

The average value for Thermal Breakdown among the synthetic Diesel oils here, was 267*, which is 15* LOWER than among the synthetic gas engine oils I’ve tested.

And as you can see with these Diesel oils above, zinc levels alone do NOT establish their wear prevention ranking. The zinc levels are randomly up and down, relative to the ranking order. So, zinc levels clearly have NOTHING to do with an oil’s protection capability or ranking order. Also, anyone who has followed my motor oil testing, probably noticed that these Diesel oil “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” psi values are rather low, with an average value for the whole group of only 72,408 psi. This number would put an oil for gasoline engines, only in the MODEST PROTECTION category (60,000 to 75,000 psi).

And considering that these oils are intended for use in heavy duty working Diesel engines as used in big rigs, bulldozers, locomotives, etc, etc, you probably expected to see some rather impressive psi numbers. But, if you were expecting that, you were obviously disappointed and maybe even shocked. So, what’s going on here?

Obviously since all these diesel oil numbers are so closely clustered together with only about a 20,000 psi range (compared to the gas engine oil numbers which have a much larger range of almost 60,000 psi), it is clear that the oil companies intentionally formulated them to be in this general range. Why would they do that? How can that be good enough for these hard working diesel engines?

Diesel engines of this type are made very rugged and very durable for the long haul. And in order to accomplish that, the engine’s components are designed and sized to keep the part loading at a modest level. And of course, these engines are known primarily for their impressive low end torque under boost, but NOT for their high rpm HP. All that being the case, these oils don’t need to have a higher capability. And this type of Diesel engine typically takes a LOT OF OIL. So, cost becomes a real factor when changing oil. This means that no oil company is going to make their products way better than needed, because that would make their products too expensive to be competitive in the marketplace.

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 gasoline engine oils that I’ve tested previously. And they all had test results over 90,000 psi, which put them in the “OUTSTANDING PROTECTION” category for gasoline engines.

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
moly = 3 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

SUMMARY
Thermal Breakdown BEGINS SOONER with Diesel oil, than with gas engine oils, which is not desirable for High Performance gas engine usage. And as you can see by looking at this short list of “high zinc” gas engine oils, or by looking at my complete Wear Protection Ranking List, there are many, many gas engine oils available that are FAR SUPERIOR to the best Diesel oils in terms of wear protection. Therefore, using Diesel oils in high performance gas engines is NOT the best choice, if you want superior wear protection with plenty of margin of safety (extra reserve wear protection above what the engine typically needs).

.
For those who have used Diesel oil in High Performance gas engines for years without issue, you were able to do that only because the wear protection required by the engines, never happened to exceed the oil’s capability. But, you were clearly running a MUCH LOWER margin of safety than you would have been, if you’d used a much more capable gas engine oil instead. So, if you’ve been using Diesel oil in High Performance gas engines, you may want to rethink what you’ve been doing and consider upgrading to one of the far better gas engine oils.

CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that the end user does NOT know more about motor oil than the Oil Companies’ Chemical Engineers and Chemists. So, the BEST choice is to use only quality gas engine oil in High Performance gas engines. These oils offer MUCH HIGHER wear protection capability and can withstand somewhat higher temperatures before the onset of Thermal Breakdown. Leave the less capable Diesel oils for use only in Diesel engines, where they are meant to be used.

540 RAT

.

==================

.

==================

.
13. DO COMPARABLE ZINC LEVELS PROVIDE COMPARABLE WEAR PROTECTION?

Some folks have a hard time accepting certain data that has come out of the motor oil “wear testing” that I’ve been performing. The result that is the hardest for them to accept is the outcome showing that an oil with a high level of zinc, will not automatically provide excellent wear protection. That runs counter to everything they’ve always been told over the years.

The data I’ve provided up to now has always included low zinc modern API certified oils along with traditional high zinc High Performance and Racing oils. But having so many oils of different types of oil in the same test, might be a bit overwhelming or confusing. So, here I’ve selected only 13 oils that all have between 1100 and 1800 ppm zinc. That way the comparison is just apples to apples. Now zinc levels vs wear protection can easily be compared straight across.

The excellent performance of many of these high zinc oils, shows that my testing equipment and test procedure do in fact, allow high zinc oils to perform as well as they are capable of performing.

Wear protection categories are:

• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection

• 90,000 to 105,000 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

I’ve also included detergent levels for reference as well.

All the oils below are full synthetic unless otherwise specified.

The following group of 13 oils are ranked according to their “load carrying capacity/film strength”, or in other words, their “wear protection” performance, at 230*F. The higher the psi number, the better the wear protection. The tests were repeated multiple times for each oil, and then those results were averaged to arrive at the final psi numbers shown below. And every single oil was tested EXACTLY THE SAME.

1. 10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
total detergent = 1618 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.0
NOTE: Due to its very low TBN value, this oil is only suitable for short term racing use, and is not suitable for street use.

2. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
(.3% below no.1)
zinc = 1472 ppm
total detergent = 2787 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.9

3. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
(2.6% below no.1)
zinc = 1180 ppm
total detergent = 2683 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.9

4. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil = 95,360 psi
(8.2% below no.1)
zinc = 1431 ppm
total detergent = 2927 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio =2.0

5. 10W30 Joe Gibbs HR4 Hotrod Oil = 86,270 psi
(16.9% below no.1)
zinc = 1247 ppm
total detergent = 3134 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 2.5

6. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) = 74,860 psi
(27.9% below no.1)
zinc = 1421 ppm
total detergent = 3050 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 2.1

7. 15W40 Farm Rated Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ (conventional) = 73,176 psi
(29.5% below no.1)
zinc = 1325ppm
total detergent = 1593 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.2

8. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 (semi-synthetic) = 71,377 psi
(31.3% below no.1)
zinc = 1621 ppm
total detergent = 2939 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.8

9. 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 (semi-synthetic) = 71,206 psi
(31.4% below no.1)
zinc = 1557 ppm
total detergent = 3173 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 2.0

10. 15W50 Mobil 1, API SN = 70,235 psi
(32.4% below no.1)
zinc = 1133 ppm
total detergent = 1437 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.3

11. 10W30 Royal Purple HPS (High Performance Street) = 66,211 psi
(36.2% below no.1)
zinc = 1774 ppm
total detergent = 3676 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 2.1

12. 10W40 Valvoline 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil conventional, API SJ = 65,553 psi
(36.9% below no.1)
zinc = 1154 ppm
total detergent = 1999 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio =1.1

13. Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil conventional = 62,931 psi
(39.4% below no.1)
zinc = 1170 ppm
total detergent = 3184 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 2.7

SUMMARY:
As you can see, the number one oil above, the 10W30 Valvoline NSL Conventional Racing Oil, has 1669 ppm zinc and 103,846 psi “load carrying capacity/film strength”. But, the number 11 oil, the 10W30 Royal Purple HPS (High Performance Street), has 1774 ppm zinc, but ONLY 66,211 psi “load carrying capacity/film strength”, which is a WHOPPING 36.2% below the number one Valvoline.

On top of that, the number one Valvoline is conventional dino oil, while the Royal Purple is synthetic. So, many people might not expect conventional oil to perform so well, since synthetic oil gets all the hype. Conventional oil is still quite good and does not get the respect it deserves. It’s sort of like the fact that Chevy’s late model high performance push rod engines are still quite good, even though most all other modern vehicles use overhead cam designs and get most of the hype.

If you had only looked at the spec sheet for each of these two oils, you’d assume they were equal in wear protection because their zinc levels were essentially the same. But nothing could be further from the truth. This is real world test data (not just some theory), which compared motor oils against each other under the EXACT SAME test conditions. So, this is a perfect example of the fact, that you cannot simply look at the zinc value on an oil’s spec sheet, and assume that you can predict how well it will provide wear protection. Things are just NOT that simple in the real world.

And for those folks who want to avoid high levels of detergent in their oils, for fear that an oil with a lot of detergent will not be able to provide adequate wear protection, let’s look at that above as well. The oils ranked 1st and 12th both had low levels of detergent. And the oils ranked 2nd and 13th both had high or relatively high levels of detergent. The rest of the oils were a mixed bag of high and low detergent oils. So, that is proof that detergent levels are a non-issue, and that there are better things to worry about.

You simply cannot believe all the misinformation you come across about motor oil, on the Internet, on Forums, and elsewhere. The bottom line is that, the only way to really KNOW how well an oil can provide wear protection, is to perform real world “wear testing” at a representative temperature, and see how it performs dynamically, under load. It’s the same kind of reason that we dyno test engines, rather than simply looking at their build sheets. “Wear testing” motor oil is the gold standard, just like “dyno testing” an engine is the gold standard. Anything else is simply guessing.

As I’ve said before, there are no BAD oils here. They all will generally work well enough in most applications. But, some do clearly provide a higher level of reserve “extra protection capability” than others. Of course you can decide for yourself, how much reserve “extra protection capability” is good enough for your needs.

540 RAT

.

=========================

.

=========================

.
14. DOES PROLONG ENGINE TREATMENT ACTUALLY WORK?

.
I was asked to test Prolong Engine Treatment motor oil additive, which claims to increase wear protection and decrease heat and friction, to see if it actually works the way the makers claim.

Their website says, “Unlike other engine treatments on the market, Prolong Engine Treatment does not contain any solid particles such as PTFE resins, ‘molys’, zinc, copper or graphite. There is simply no other product that works as well as Prolong to reduce friction and heat in your vehicle’s engine”.
A few things the packaging says:

• No Equal In The World

• Prolong works in an effective partnership with your motor oil, to give your engine the ultimate protection against destructive metal to metal contact.

• Prolong Engine Treatment works immediately.

.
They call for using their 12 ounce bottle for the initial treatment, and then to use their 8 ounce bottle at the following oil changes. The 12 ounce bottle costs about $20.00 and the 8 ounce bottle costs around $17.00. Those bottles are intended to treat 4 to 5 quarts of oil.

So, I tested Prolong Engine Treatment, and here are the results:

• 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API “SN”, full synthetic, by itself produces a wear protection capability of 92,569 psi. But, with the addition of the recommended amount of Prolong, its wear protection capability increased to 136,658 psi, or up 48%. Comparing this increased value to the earlier API “SM” version of 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, which by itself had a wear protection capability of 115,612 psi, the addition of Prolong increased its capability by 18%. The Prolong added capability of 136,658 psi, is the highest value I’ve ever seen. It is so high that it is completely off my wear protection category chart. This combination will become my latest number one ranked oil. No one could ever ask for any oil to provide a higher level of wear protection than this combination provides.

• 5W30 Castrol GTX conventional, by itself produces a wear protection capability of 95,392 psi. But, with the addition of the recommended amount of Prolong, its wear protection capability increased to 130,366 psi, or up 37%. This combination will become my latest number two ranked oil.

• 5W30 Pennzoil conventional yellow bottle, by itself produces a wear protection capability of 76,989 psi. But, with the addition of the recommended amount of Prolong, its wear protection capability increased to 117,028 psi, or up 52%. This combination will become my latest number three ranked oil.

• This Prolong Engine Treatment motor oil additive works amazingly well in all types of oils, at all ranking levels. It is the REAL DEAL in terms of improving wear protection capability. And it might have been worth considering, if it wasn’t for the major problem below…

WARNING!!! Prolong Engine Treatment contains chlorine. As a result, there have been legal issues with this product because of chlorine caused engine damage. And Prolong also settled with the FTC over unsubstantiated claims they made about their product’s capability. The psi data here provides information on wear protection capability ONLY! But, it does NOT provide any information on the long term effects of this product’s chlorine.

Chlorine’s long term corrosive damage, outweighs any short term friction reduction benefit. Chlorine is so corrosive that the motor oil industry stopped using chlorine compounds as part off factory additive packages, decades ago. In lab testing, Prolong showed to contain a startling high 30% chlorine. Using an aftermarket additive containing chlorine, is extremely risky, and is playing Russian Roulette with your engine. Prolong provides no benefit to stock engines, or other engines that are designed and built properly, that is worth risking serious long term engine damage.

Aftermarket motor oil additives ruin and oil’s carefully balanced factory additive package, making the oil WORSE OVERALL than it was to begin with, no matter what it may or may not do for the wear protection capability. The test data on Prolong is included in my Ranking List for informational purposes only, because of requests I have received about testing this product. But, I do NOT endorse it, and I would NEVER recommend its use.

It is always best to simply choose a highly ranked motor oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List in the first place, which will NOT need any help. Then use it just as it comes, right out of the bottle with NO aftermarket additives, and your engine will be well protected.

And for the record, I have no affiliation what so ever, with any Oil Company or any Oil Additive Company. I simply post the results that come out of my independent and unbiased testing.

540 RAT

.

====================

.

====================

.
15. TEST DATA ON THE NEWEST PENNZOILS MADE FROM NATURAL GAS

Pennzoil has introduced a new line of motor oil made from natural gas. I thought it would be interesting to see how they perform in terms of wear protection capability, which is by far the most important job a motor oil performs, as well as how they compare to previous Pennzoil’s. I purchased the new 5W30 Pennzoil “Ultra” Platinum and the new 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum for testing.

Wear protection reference categories are:

* Over 120,000 psi = FANTASTIC wear protection

* 105,000 to 120,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection

* 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection

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

* 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODERATE wear protection

* 50,000 to 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE LOW wear protection

* Below 50,000 psi = CAUTION – EXTREMELY LOW wear protection

The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.

• 5W30 Pennzoil “Ultra” Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN = 99,039 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a dark gray bottle with a blue vertical stripe on the label. This oil now combines the names Ultra and Platinum, where these names previously identified different oil’s. As you can see, this oil is well into the OUTSTANDING wear protection category.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

• 5W3 Pennzoil Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN = 87,241 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a silver bottle with a blue vertical stripe on the label. As you can see, this oil is near the top of the GOOD wear protection category.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

*******

Here’s how they compare to the previous version of these API SN oil’s that were NOT made from natural gas.
• 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN synthetic = 92,569 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas. This older oil’s psi value is about 6.5% lower than the new natural gas version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The older API “SM” version of this oil, produced a wear protection capability value of 115,612 psi.

• 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas. This older oil’s psi value is about 14.5% higher than the new natural gas version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

.

=======================

.

=======================

.

16. HIGH TEMP MOTOR OIL WEAR TESTING – MYTH VS REALITY

.

I’ve re-tested a dozen of those oils at a higher temperature to get a better idea of how various oil types perform over a wider range of temperatures. The oils chosen this time consist of:

*** 10 different brands
*** 6 low zinc (below 1,000 ppm) oils
*** 6 high zinc (above 1,000 ppm) oils
*** Viscosities ranging from 5W20 to 20W50
*** 8 full synthetic oils
*** 3 conventional dino oils
*** 1 semi-synthetic oil
*** 6 Racing/High Performance oils
*** 6 Modern API certified oils
*** 6 Low detergent (less than 2.0 “detergent/zinc” ratio) oils
*** 6 High detergent (2.0 or higher “detergent/zinc” ratio) oils

Here are those 12 oils, ranked by their test result capabilities at 230*F:
1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM (synthetic)
115,612 psi “load carrying capacity”

2. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only (synthetic)
106,505 psi “load carrying capacity” (8% below no. 1)

3. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN (synthetic)
105,875 psi “load carrying capacity” (8% below no. 1)

4. 5W50 Motorcraft, API SN (synthetic)
103,517 psi “load carrying capacity” (10% below no. 1)

5. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil silver bottle (conventional)
103,505 psi “load carrying capacity” (10% below no. 1)

6. 5W20 Castrol Edge w/Titanium, API SN (synthetic)
99,983 psi “load carrying capacity” (14% below no. 1)

7. 20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN (conventional)
96,514 psi “load carrying capacity” (17% below no. 1)

8. 10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil (synthetic)
95,543 psi “load carrying capacity” (17% below no. 1)

9. 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN (conventional)
95,392 psi “load carrying capacity” (17% below no. 1)

10. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil (synthetic)
95,360 psi “load carrying capacity” (18% below no. 1)

11. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (synthetic)
74,860 psi “load carrying capacity” (35% below no. 1)

12. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 (semi-synthetic)
71,377 psi “load carrying capacity” (38% below no. 1)
Of these 12 oils, the top 10 were in the over 90,000 psi “OUTSTANDING PROTECTION CATEGORY”. And the last 2 were in the 60,000 to 75,000 psi “MODEST PROTECTION CATEGORY”. Now let’s take a look at how things changed at a higher temperature.

Capability ranking at 275*F:

1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM = 97,955 psi (dropped 15% from its 230* value)

2. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN = 96,323 psi (dropped 9% from its 230* value)
(2% below no. 1 here at 275*)

3. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only = 95,996 psi (dropped 10% from its 230* value)
(2% below no. 1 here at 275*)

4. 5W50 Motorcraft, API SN = 92,545 psi (dropped 11% from its 230* value)
(6% below no. 1 here at 275*)

5. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil = 91,351 psi (dropped ONLY 4% from its 230* value)
(7% below no. 1 here at 275*)

6. 20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN = 85,815 psi (dropped 11% from its 230* value)
(12% below no. 1 here at 275*)

7. 5W20 Castrol Edge w/Titanium, API SN = 84,584 psi (dropped 15% from its 230* value)
(14% below no. 1 here at 275*)

8. 10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil = 80,957 psi (dropped 15% from its 230* value)
(17% below no. 1 here at 275*)

9. 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN = 80,957 psi (dropped 15% from its 230* value)
(17% below no. 1 here at 275*)
NOTE: This is not a typo here, number 8 and 9 here just happened to have the same size wear scar, thus the same psi value.

10. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil, silver bottle = 75,116 psi (dropped 27% from its 230* value)
(23% below no. 1 here at 275*)

11. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 = 68,768 psi (dropped ONLY 4% from its 230* value)
(30% below no. 1 here at 275*)

12. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR = 66,664 psi (dropped 11% from its 230* value)
(32% below no. 1 here at 275*)

As expected, the capability psi values dropped as the oils got hotter and thinner. But for most of the oils, the drop was not enormous. And the average psi drop for the whole group of 12 oils, was only about 12% from their 230* values.

You can see, there was some shuffling of the ranking order, but the original top 10, are still in the top 10. And there was no indication of the presence of slow burn zinc (requires more heat and load to become effective) that may have helped the low performing high zinc oils, do better at higher temps.

But, since engines oil won’t typically be running at just 230*F or at just 275*F, it makes the most sense to average the values from the relatively cool low temp and the relatively hot high temp, to arrive at values in the middle. This will provide a more real world reference overall.

The “average” capability ranking from 230*F and 275*F combined:

1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM (synthetic)
106,784 psi “load carrying capacity”
zinc = 806 ppm
total detergent = 3387 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 4.2, the higher this number, the higher the proportion of detergent, which can have the potential to try and clean away zinc

2. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only (synthetic)
NOT SUITABLE FOR STREET USE
101,251 psi “load carrying capacity” (5% below no. 1)
zinc = 2642 ppm
total detergent = 2943 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.1

3. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN (synthetic)
101,099 psi “load carrying capacity” (5% below no. 1)
zinc = 801 ppm
total detergent = 1489 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.9

4. 5W50 Motorcraft, API SN (synthetic)
98,031 psi “load carrying capacity” (8% below no. 1)
zinc = 606 ppm
total detergent = 2005 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 3.3

5. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil (synthetic)
93,356 psi “load carrying capacity” (13% below no. 1)
zinc = 1431 ppm
total detergent = 2927 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio =2.0

6. 5W20 Castrol Edge w/Titanium, API SN (synthetic)
92,284 psi “load carrying capacity” (14% below no. 1)
zinc = 1042 ppm
total detergent = 1952 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.9

7. 20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN (conventional)
91,165 psi “load carrying capacity” (15% below no. 1)
zinc = 610 ppm
total detergent = 2599 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 4.3

8. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil silver bottle (conventional)
89,311 psi “load carrying capacity” (16% below no. 1)
zinc = 1472 ppm
total detergent = 2787 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.9

9. 10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil (synthetic)
NOT SUITABLE FOR STREET USE
88,250 psi “load carrying capacity” (17% below no. 1)
zinc = 743 ppm
total detergent = 620 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = .8

10. 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN (conventional)
88,175 psi “load carrying capacity” (17% below no. 1)
zinc = 830 ppm
total detergent = 2648 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 3.2

11. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (synthetic)
70,762 psi “load carrying capacity” (34% below no. 1)
zinc = 1421 ppm
total detergent = 3050 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 2.1

12. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 (semi-synthetic)
70,073 psi “load carrying capacity” (34% below no. 1)
zinc = 1621 ppm
total detergent = 2939 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.8 (only 43% of the detergent concentration of no. 1)

Looking at these 230*F and 275*F combined “average values”, you can see the following:

*** Modern API certified oils ranked from number 1 to number 10
*** Racing/High Performance oils ranked from number 2 to number 12
*** High detergent oils ranked from number 1 to number 11
*** Low detergent oils ranked from number 2 to number 12
*** Synthetic oils ranked from number 1 to number 11
*** Conventional dino oils ranked from number 7 to number 10
*** Semi-synthetic oil ranked number 12
*** 20 wt type oil ranked number 6
*** 30 wt type oils ranked from number 1 to number 12
*** 50 wt type oils ranked from number 4 to number 7

So, it’s quite clear by looking at these results, that high zinc levels, high detergent levels, and heavy viscosities do NOT play any particular roll in how well a motor oil does or does not provide wear protection. The only thing that matters is the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”. Looking at zinc levels, detergent levels, and viscosities on an oil’s spec sheet, will NOT help you choose a motor oil that provides the best wear protection. If that is all you go by, you will be kidding yourself about how good any particular oil is.

And keep in mind that the oil industry is fully aware that there is alternate chemistry available besides zinc/phos, which can be used for extreme pressure wear protection, that is equal to or better than zinc/phos. And that alternate chemistry is just what they use to reduce the zinc/phos levels in modern API certified oils. So, you do NOT need to have high levels of zinc/phos in order to have outstanding wear protection, no matter how loud someone screams that you do. Because they simply DO NOT know what they are talking about, and are only repeating that same old incorrect wives tale. That high zinc thinking is only a MYTH repeated a million times until everyone just “thinks” it’s true. But, that MYTH has been BUSTED by real world “dynamic wear testing under load”.

In spite of what many Racers, Hotrodders and Gearheads have been lead to believe about zinc levels, only “dynamic wear testing under load” can provide the necessary data to help you choose a motor oil that will truly provide the best wear protection. It’s the same type of idea where we dyno test engines to see how they truly perform, rather than just looking at their spec sheets.
SYNTHETIC VS CONVENTIONAL OILS

Some of the most commonly claimed benefits of synthetics are:

.
1. Synthetics provide a higher level of wear protection.

.
2. Synthetics can withstand higher temperatures before thermal breakdown begins.

.
3. Synthetics provide superior flow under extremely cold conditions.

.

So, let’s see how the real world testing above, supports those claims. The synthetics above did show some advantage regarding wear protection, but NOT by a large amount. The highest ranked conventional oil ranked 7th out of 12, but was only 15% below the highest ranked synthetic oil. And this conventional oil ranked higher than other synthetic and semi-synthetic oils.

This shows that you cannot automatically assume that a synthetic oil will provide the best wear protection just because it is synthetic. Wear protection depends on the oil and its additive package “as a whole”. And it’s the additive package that contains the extreme pressure protection components, not the oil itself. And again, only “dynamic wear testing under load” can provide the data to help you choose an oil that provides the best wear protection.

THERMAL BREAKDOWN

Thermal breakdown is the point at which the composition of the oil begins to change due to the temperature it’s exposed to.

.

The “Official” test for this is called the NOACK Volatility Test. In this test, per the ASTM spec, the oil is heated to 250*C (482*F) for one hour. The lighter oil fractions will vaporize, leaving thicker and heavier oil, contributing to poor circulation, reduced fuel economy, increased oil consumption, increased wear and increased emissions.

.

The test reports results in the percentage, by weight, lost due to “volatilization.” Before July 1, 2001, 5W-30 motor oil in the United States could lose up to 22 percent of its weight and still be regarded as “passable.” Now, with GF-4, the maximum NOACK volatility for API licensing is 15 percent. European standards limit high quality oils to a maximum of 13 percent loss.

.
This of course means that any motor oil that has been heated above its onset of thermal breakdown point, has started to deteriorate. So, reasonable oil change intervals should be followed. See Tech Article, “25. Recommended Oil Change Interval”, for more details.

.
So, I also heated the oils and observed the temperature at which they started to vaporize (which looks like smoke to the casual observer, even though the oil is NOT actually burning), which indicates the onset of thermal breakdown:

.

5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM = 280*

5W30 Mobil 1, API SN = 265*

10W30 Lucas Racing Only = 290*

5W50 Motorcraft, API SN = 275*

10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil = 300*, the BEST in this test

20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN = 275*

5W20 Castrol Edge w/Titanium, API SN = 280*

10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil = 280*

5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN = 280*

10W30 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil, silver bottle = 260*, the WORST in this test

0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 = 280*

5W30 Royal Purple XPR = 285*

.
Here are the “averages” for the onset of thermal breakdown with these 12 oils:

Full synthetic oils = 282*

Semi-synthetic oil = 280*

Conventional dino oils = 272*

For the oils tested above, certain specific oils did show a significant difference, such as the synthetic Amsoil Z-Rod oil which had a 40* advantage over the conventional Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil.

But, as for overall averages, there was only a 10* difference between synthetic and conventional oils. So, the real world observation here does NOT support common internet oil info claims about synthetic oils having an unbelievably high temperature capability compared to conventional oil.

Don’t believe everything you read on the internet about motor oil. Because there is a lot of misinformation floating around, that has often been repeated over and over without any proof to back it up. Most sources never ever do any independent testing at all, they just repeat what others have already written. And it doesn’t matter how many times, different sources repeat the same wrong information, it will never magically become true.

As mentioned above, performing real world “dynamic wear testing under load” is the only way to determine the true story about which oils actually do provide the best wear protection. And this is precisely why I decided to perform my own testing. That way I could see for myself what is real and what is not.

The above info also makes a good case for running an effective oil cooler setup, if one is needed to keep the oil safely below the threshold of thermal breakdown. But you may also need an oil cooler thermostat as part of that type of setup as well, so that the oil doesn’t end up too cool. You should keep oil temps above 212*F to keep the normal engine condensation quickly boiled off, rather than just slowly evaporated off. You don’t want to allow slowly evaporating water to have the chance to mix in with the oil and dilute it. Oil can only be thinned out by becoming diluted with coolant/water or fuel. And oil can only get thicker by getting overheated and vaporizing its lighter components. So, an ideal sump temperature range for most motor oils in general, would be between 215*F and 250*F. You get the idea, not too cold, not too hot, just right.

I did not test the cold flow capability of synthetic oils here. So, that claim’s validity remains to be seen. But I did perform one last test here, and that was testing at 325*F, to see what wear protection capability still exists during extreme heating conditions. I selected the highest ranked low zinc oil, 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM and the highest ranked high zinc oil, 10W30 Lucas Racing Only. Even though they were both vaporizing a lot at this temperature, here are the results at 325*F:

1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM
98,329 psi “load carrying capacity” (essentially no change from its 275* value)

2. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only
97,561 psi “load carrying capacity” (essentially no change from its 275* value)

As you can see, their load carrying capacity leveled off and stayed approximately the same between 275* and 325*. So, it is comforting to know that you don’t run into dangerously low wear protection if and when you end up with overheated oil at some point. But of course the oil will have already run into thermal breakdown and should be changed as soon as possible.

At the end of the day, there are many outstanding motor oils available. And now you have even more oil performance data to consider. So, making an educated choice to suit your needs should not be too difficult.

.

540 RAT
.
================================
.
.
================================
.
.
17.  DO “HTHS” (High-Temperature/High-Shear) VALUES PROVIDE ANY USEFUL INFORMATION ABOUT WEAR PROTECTION CAPABILITY?
.
The Motor Oil Wear Protection testing I perform, provides valuable information on how capable various motor oils are at providing wear protection.

.
But, HTHS (High-Temperature/High-Shear) test data only provides information on how capable various motor oils are at maintaining their viscosity under high heat and high stress conditions. But, that HTHS viscosity data DOES NOT provide any information at all about an oil’s wear protection capability. Because a motor oil’s viscosity DOES NOT determine its wear protection capability. A lot of people are completely mistaken when they believe viscosity determines an oil’s wear protection capability. On some Forums, people discuss HTHS values and how they indicate an oil’s wear protection capability. But, that whole line of thinking is completely FALSE.

.
Here are some FACTS that came directly out of the Engineering tests I perform on motor oil.
.

20 wt oils rank between number 2 and 220

30 wt oils rank between number 1 and 233

40 wt oils rank between number 6 and 219

50 wt oils rank between number 39 and 228

60 wt oil, the only one tested, ranked number 101

70 wt oil, the only one tested, ranked number 177
.
So, as you can see, oil viscosity itself plays no particular role in an oil’s wear protection capability. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the primary emphasis on the additive package, which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, which has nothing to do with viscosity.

.
Any HTHS values used as a comparison for wear protection, DO NOT reliably tell you anything. The extreme pressure anti-wear components from the additive package are what really determine wear protection, NOT those HTHS values. People often do not understand this, which is why they sometimes get the wrong idea about HTHS values.

.
The oils I have ranked, were all tested at a representative 230*F operating temperature.
.
But, I have also tested various motor oils at 275*F as well as 325*F. What I found was that going from 230*F to 275*F, the wear protection capability of the oils tested, dropped by only about 12% on average. I also found that going from 275*F to 325*F, their wear protection capability leveled off and stayed about the same. I also found that even at these elevated temperatures, there was no significant change in ranking order. And this proves that my normal test data which comes from 230*F, is valid even at much higher temperatures.

.

Keep in mind that my test data pertains to motor oil film strength/load carrying capability/ shear resistance, which is of critical importance where that is the form of lubrication involved in many locations in an engine. But, regarding rod and main plain bearings, an oil’s film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance is not what prevents wear in that location of an engine. Remember that all liquids are incompressible, even water. An engine’s plain bearings are lubricated by oil flow. Oil viscosity is NOT what keeps these parts separated. The parts are kept separated by the incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge that is formed as the liquid oil is pulled in between the spinning parts. As long as sufficient oil is supplied to the crankshaft/bearing interface, no wear can occur. Because as long as sufficient oil pressure is maintained to provide the needed oil supply, that critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge will be maintained. The only way high oil temps could compromise this type of lubrication, is if the oil pressure fell so dangerously low, that it could no longer supply sufficient oil flow to maintain that all-important incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge. Again, ALL liquids are incompressible, no matter what their temperature is. If your oil sump temp gets higher than recommended, keep a close eye on your oil pressure gauge to make sure it is at an acceptable level.

.
I also tested a number of used oils with 5,000 miles on them. And found that there was no loss of wear protection capability.
.
At the end of the day, the most important thing a motor oil does, is protect an engine against wear. Everything else it does, comes AFTER that. I don’t place a lot of importance on HTHS data, because my film strength/load carrying capability values are really the only data that provides useful information regarding wear protection capability.

540 RAT

.

=================================

.

.

=================================

.

18. ENGINEERING TEST DATA ON HIGH MILEAGE MOTOR OILS

.

Before we get into motor oil tech, let’s briefly touch on a little background info. In addition to being a lifelong Gear Head, Mechanic, Hotrodder, Drag Racer, and Engine Builder, I’m also a working Professional Degreed Mechanical Engineer, as well as a U.S. Patent holder. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. A Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical components under load.

It should also be noted, that I do not sell motor oil, nor do I work for any Motor Oil Company. I have no vested interest in what motor oil people choose to buy. I only share my Motor Oil Engineering Test Data for free, as a courtesy for other interested parties, so they too can benefit from the knowledge that was never available until now. People can embrace my data and make good use of it, or they can ignore it and continue to make uninformed motor oil choices, which will result in them not always having the wear protection they think they have. And having less wear protection than they think they have, has often resulted in wiped lobes in flat tappet engines.

The independent and unbiased Engineering testing I perform at a REPRESENTATIVE OPERATIONAL TEMPERATURE, to establish motor oil wear protection capability, is a dynamic friction test under load, similar to how an engine dyno test is a dynamic HP/Torque test under load. Both tests show how their subjects truly perform in the real world, no matter what brand names are involved, no matter what outrageous claims may have been made, and no matter what their spec sheets may say.

I always check and adjust if needed, the calibration of my test equipment each time I test a different oil, to keep the results accurate. I also perform multiple tests on each oil, then average those values to arrive at the most accurate and representative value that I post for comparison. The results, good or bad, simply are what they are, and are determined by the complete chemical makeup of each oil tested, which is just what your engine sees after you pour it in.

My Motor Oil Wear Protection Ranking List of over 150 different oils, is “proven” by the Physics and Chemistry involved, and it EXACTLY matches real world Track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance Street experience (test data validation doesn’t get any better than this). You can see the details on all that, by going to the Oil Test Data Blog link below.

It is not a matter of agreeing with my data or not agreeing with it, because the data used to create my Wear Protection Ranking List is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. The data, as mentioned above, is the result of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the testing. I am only the messenger. The Science is what tells us how these oils perform. And no sensible person would try to argue against Physics and Chemistry. Science is absolute whether people like it or not, and emotion cannot change it.

The fact is, motor oil wear protection capability is determined by the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the emphasis on the synergistic effects of the base oil and entire additive package, which is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, and NOT merely by how much zinc is present. The use of zinc as the primary extreme pressure anti-wear component is outdated technology. Modern extreme pressure anti-wear components are equal to or better than zinc, which is why many modern low zinc oils outperform many traditional high zinc oils. Engineering tests have proven over and over again, that it is completely worthless to simply look at the zinc level of a particular motor oil to try to determine how well it provides wear protection.

So, think long and hard before believing anything the naysayers say when they try to discredit my Motor Oil Engineering Test Data. There are always some who try, but fail in their attempt. They are not actually arguing with me, even if they think they are. They are actually arguing against the Science of Physics and Chemistry. Who do you think will win that battle? And ask them how they figure they know more than what the Science of Physics and Chemistry proves. Ask them what their qualifications are. Ask them what testing they have ever done.

They are typically high zinc lovers who just can’t accept the fact that what they’ve always believed about the need for high zinc oils, is only an Old Wives Tale MYTH. So, they get upset and go out of their way trying to undermine anything that goes against what they have been brainwashed to believe about high zinc oils. But, emotion does not determine the Engineering results of how good any particular oil is. As mentioned above, and it bears repeating, factual Engineering tests have proven over and over again that zinc levels alone DO NOT determine an oil’s wear protection capability.

The naysayers cannot factually back-up anything they say. They think they are motor oil experts simply because they have done a bunch of Internet reading. They will sometimes make a big deal about what is in the base oil. They will sometimes provide links to lame Internet articles, which are often just a lab test of a single individual zinc component, showing what it did in that particular lab test. But, that is not any actual motor oil that you buy and pour into your engine. It may be somewhat interesting to read, but that type of test does not does not take into account the countless formula variations and synergistic effects found in the actual motor oils that are available on the market. Therefore, you are only looking at a single data point of a test that is not even what will end up in your engine. Or in other words, worthless information that many zinc lovers falsely believe, is that last word on motor oil. That is NOT how Engineering works. And lot of their lame Internet articles are nothing more than one author copying from the same worthless source material as other authors.

And if that isn’t bad enough, some information they throw out there as Gospel is only advertising hype from a motor oil’s bottle or website. Of course it is no secret that Motor Oil Companies are among the worst for false advertising. The absolute worst motor oils on the market, and the absolute best motor oils on the market, make the same claims about how wonderful they are. So, the claims made on motor oil bottles and websites would only be taken as truthful, by gullible people who are not Technically savvy.
These zinc lover critics may mean well, but they really DO NOT know what they are talking about. Motor Oil Companies will say absolutely anything to sell their products. When it comes to motor oil, there is no such thing as truth in advertising. And that is why you never see any advertising data from a given Motor Oil Company about how its modern low zinc oils compare to its traditional high zinc oils. That is because it is simply not true that all high zinc oils are better than all low zinc oils. The truth is, some high zinc oils are quite good, while other high zinc oils are quite poor. And you cannot tell the difference by looking only their zinc quantities.

Then these naysayers will also sometimes use the oil recommendations from Cam Companies as support for their position on what oil to use. Problem is, just because Cam Companies sell cams, does not  mean they know the first thing about motor oil. They are simply staffed by people who are brainwashed to believe that any high zinc oil will provide all the wear protection necessary for flat tappet cams. But, the proof that they are clueless about motor oil, is the fact that even the leading Cam Companies still have flat tappet lobes get wiped, when people use the oils they recommend. And those oils are typically the oils that have tested very poorly in my Motor Oil Engineering Wear Protection Testing. On top of that, Cam Companies typically do not employ Degreed Mechanical Engineers. So, it comes as no surprise that they supply bad information as to what oils to use.

The people who recommend poor performing motor oils, believe if they haven’t lost a lobe while using a certain oil, that it must be great oil. But, they just don’t know, what they don’t know. That only means the oil they used provided “enough” protection for the particular application that didn’t fail. But, that does not tell them anything about how much extra protection they had beyond that. So, their “opinion” of that oil is not a good technical evaluation of its capability. That would be like them telling you that an engine making 750 HP, is good as long as it has rods in it that can withstand 751 HP. Yeah, it might not throw a rod, or maybe it will. But, no technically savvy person would want to run a margin of safety that close.

It’s the same idea with the oil you choose to run. Don’t run an oil with a margin of safety that close. My Motor Oil Engineering Test Data, allows us see how different oils truly compare to each other, so we can run a substantial margin of safety to provide the best possible wear protection for our engines. You have to spend money buying oil anyway, so why not buy excellent oil while you are at it? So, before you consider following the bad advice others give about the oil they only “think” is good, read the real world facts about motor oil, at the link provided at the end of this posting, then decide for yourself who is providing factual motor oil information that you can actually use to your advantage.

The whole idea of simply needing a high zinc level for sufficient wear protection, is only an old wives tale myth that has been busted. Modern extreme pressure anti-wear additives are equal to or better than zinc. Relying only on zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology. Wiped flat tappet lobes continue to happen over and over again, when people use high zinc oils that produce poor results in my testing. It’s time to take notice of that.

People who want the facts about which motor oils are good and which are not so good, want to see unbiased and independent test data. And that is exactly what my motor oil film strength/load carrying capability data provides. I back-up everything I say with that hard Engineering test data that exactly matches real world experience. It matches real world experience because my test data is the real deal, which accurately predicts what we can expect from the oils we buy. I test the actual motor oils that we buy and pour into our engines. So, my test data comes entirely from real “on-the-market” motor oils, which is what truly matters.

To provide your engine with the best possible wear protection, as well as to prevent wiped flat tappet wiped lobes, I recommend that you select a highly ranked oil (I’d suggest an oil with over 90,000 psi capability for High Performance Street/Strip flat tappet engines) from my Wear Protection Ranking List, no matter how much zinc it has. That same oil, assuming it is not a short term only Racing Oil, can be used for both break-in and after break-in. Also, do NOT use any aftermarket additives at all, use the oil just as it comes right out of the bottle.

Using special break-in procedures is only a crutch for poor performing high zinc oils. And if you select a highly ranked oil from my wear protection ranking list, no matter how much zinc it has, with no aftermarket additives, you won’t even have to perform any special break-in procedures. Using an oil with a highly ranked film strength/load carrying capability is that good. I have not had one person who has followed that recommendation, ever report a wiped lobe again. If you make a wise motor oil choice based on my test data, rather than the old myth of any high zinc oil is good enough, the engine you save may be your own.

My Test Data Blog now has over 95,000 views worldwide. Of course simply listing the number of views by itself, is not intended to indicate validation of the test data (validation is shown throughout the Blog). But, indicating the number of views does show that an enormous number of people worldwide recognize the value, understand the importance, and make use of the motor oil test data FACTS included there, that cannot be found anywhere else. And as a result, they are posting and sharing links to my Blog, all over the world. See for yourself. A link is provided at the end of this posting.

*****

Now, on with Test Data on High Mileage Motor Oils.

High Mileage motor oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils include “Seal Swell” chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.

Below is how 5 different High Mileage oils ranked just among themselves, regarding wear protection capability, after they were tested.
.

The Wear protection reference categories are:
.

* Over 120,000 psi = FANTASTIC wear protection

* 105,000 to 120,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection

* 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection

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

* 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODERATE wear protection

* 50,000 to 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE LOW wear protection

* Below 50,000 psi = CAUTION – EXTREMELY LOW wear protection

The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.

.
1. 5W30 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage, API SN, synthetic blend = 108,045 psi

2. 5W30 Pennzoil High Mileage Vehicle, API SN, conventional = 102,402 psi

3. 5W30 Castrol GTX High Mileage, API SN, synthetic blend = 91,404 psi

4. 10W30 Quaker State Defy High Mileage, API SL semi-synthetic = 90,226 psi

5. 5W30 Mobil 1 High Mileage, API SL, synthetic = 88,081 psi

As you can see, these oils all performed very well, even though the top 3 are modern low zinc API SN oils. And that is even more proof that oils DO NOT need high zinc levels to provide excellent wear protection.

To see how these oils rank in my overall Wear Protection Ranking List of over 150 different  oils, go to:

Section 1 – Motor Oil “Wear Protection” Ranking List, in this Blog.

.

540 RAT

.

================================
.
.
==================================
.
19. ENGINE DYNO HP vs CHASSIS DYNO HP

.
Don’t put too much stock in Chassis Dyno data. Here’s why:
.

From time to time, folks try to determine what their engine HP is by back calculating from the Rear Wheel HP data they obtained from a Chassis Dyno. Let’s take a look at what it takes to make sense of that.
.

First we need to look at the 3, count ‘em 3, different correction factors in use.
.

1. SAE J607 also called SAE STD, which is the classic Hotrod and Racing Engine correction factor used by most folks on an engine dyno. So, if you plan to compare Hotrod or Racing Engine dyno figures between various engines across the nation, you must use this correction factor in order to be on the same page with most everyone else. It is corrected to 60*F, zero % humidity, and 29.92” hg. This one gives GROSS HP, and excludes the use of accessories, full exhaust system, full air cleaner, or any emissions equipment. Since this correction factor has the most favorable correction conditions, it will of course provide the highest numbers of all the correction factors shown here.
.

2.  SAE J1995 also called SAE GROSS, was used by the OEM’s through ’71. It is corrected to 77*F, zero % humidity, and 29.234” hg. This one gives GROSS HP, and excludes the use of accessories, full exhaust system, full air cleaner or any emissions equipment. The results using this one, are usually somewhere around 20% higher than SAE NET HP figures.

.
3. SAE J1349 also called SAE NET, has been used by the OEM’s since ’72. It is also corrected to 77*F, zero % humidity, and 29.234” hg. But this one gives NET HP, and DOES include the use of accessories, full exhaust system, full air cleaner, and any emissions equipment.
.

Since each correction factor will provide different HP results, when it comes to trying to compare and/or calculate one way or the other, between engine dyno numbers and chassis dyno numbers, you MUST use the SAME correction factor for both the engine dyno and the chassis dyno. This will keep things an apples to apples comparison and/or calculation.

.
If you don’t use the same correction factors, you end up with, at best, an apples to oranges comparison, or at worst, an apples to elephants comparison. Neither one of these is much good for back calculating engine HP from rear wheel HP.
.

When Engine and Chassis Dyno numbers are compared properly, by using the same correction factor, the most widely accepted drive train loss figures for non-IRS cars have typically been around 12 to 15% for stick cars, and around 25 to 30% for automatics.

.
So, let’s look at some real world Engine Dyno vs Chassis Dyno tests, to see how things typically shake out:

————————

From June 2011 Popular Hotrodding Magazine
.
‘70 Chevy Nova
555ci BBC
675 HP from Engine Dyno using SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor
9” rearend (not IRS)
Powerglide automatic

1. On a Dyno Dynamics Eddy Current chassis dyno with 2 smallish 12” diameter rollers, using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 487, for a 28% drive train loss. The loss was so high here, not only because of the incompatible correction factors, but also because under load, the 2 smallish dyno rollers caused MAJOR out of shape, HP robbing, tire distortion.
.
.
2.  On a Dynojet Inertia chassis dyno with 1 large  24” diameter roller, using SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to elephants comparison because of REALLY incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 564, for a 16% drive train loss. The larger dyno roller did not cause any HP robbing tire distortion here.
.
.
The results between these two chassis dyno’s varied by a whopping 77 Rear wheel HP, or 12%. This leaves you with absolutely no chance of back calculating engine HP with any degree of accuracy. Even if you threw out number 1 with all the tire distortion, and looked only at number 2, you still couldn’t accurately back calculate engine HP. Because that 16% loss is considered to be more in line with stick drive train losses, when compatible correction factors are used, and NOT automatic drive train losses when significantly incompatible correction factors are used.

The results here just leave you scratching your head. So, you can’t accurately back calculate engine HP and you can’t even feel confident about how much HP you are actually putting to the ground either. This certainly questions the value of using a Chassis dyno at all.

——————————-
From February 2011 Super Chevy Magazine
.
’72 Corvette
383ci SBC
426 HP from Engine Dyno using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor
IRS rear end
4 speed stick

On Super Chevy Magazine’s brand new Dynojet inertia chassis dyno, and using the SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 283, for a whopping 34% drive train loss.
.
.

’70 Chevelle LS6
454ci BBC
450 HP from factory Engine Dyno using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor
Solid rear end (no IRS)
TH400 automatic

On Super Chevy Magazine’s brand new Dynojet inertia chassis dyno, and using the SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 285, for a whopping 37% drive train loss.
.
.

’69 L72 Yenko Camaro
427ci BBC
425 HP from factory Engine Dyno using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor
Solid rear end (no IRS)
Stick tranny

On Super Chevy Magazine’s brand new Dynojet inertia chassis dyno, and using the SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 288, for a whopping 32% drive train loss.
.
.

’57 Chevy BelAir
283ci SBC
245 HP dual quad, from factory Engine Dyno using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor
Solid rear end (no IRS)
Powerglide automatic

On Super Chevy Magazine’s brand new Dynojet inertia chassis dyno, and using the SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 158, for a whopping 36% drive train loss.
.
The drive train losses for this group of 4 cars ranged from 32% to 37%, and were high due to incompatible correction factors. On top of that, there was no clear distinction at all between stick cars, automatic cars, and IRS cars, even though stick cars typically only have about half as much drive train loss as automatic cars. So, none of these figures are worth much either, in terms of accuracy or usefulness.
.
.
————————————
.
.
From March 2011 Hotrod Magazine
.
2011 Shelby GT500 Super Snake Mustang
5.4L Supercharged V-8
750 HP from Engine Dyno using SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor
solid rearend (not IRS)
6 speed stick
.
1. On a Dynojet Inertia chassis dyno using SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor. Rear wheel HP = 654, for a 13% drive train loss. Being that this is an apples to apples comparison because of the same correction factors being used, it makes sense to see a 13% drive train loss, which is in the range of what would be expected for a non-IRS stick car.
.
.
2. On a SECOND Dynojet Inertia chassis dyno at another shop, which also used the SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor. Rear wheel HP = 652, for a 13% drive train loss. Being that this is an apples to apples comparison because of the same correction factors being used, again it makes sense to see a 13% drive train loss, which is in the range of what would be expected for a non-IRS stick car.
.
.
3. On a Superflow Auto Dyn eddy current chassis dyno using SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor. Rear wheel HP = 630, for a 16% drive train loss. Being that this is an apples to apples comparison because of the same correction factors being used, it still makes sense to see a 16% drive train loss, which is just on the outer edge of the range of what would be expected for a non-IRS stick car.
.
.
4. On a Mustang brand eddy current chassis dyno using SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 568, for a 24% drive train loss. These numbers are too far off to be of any use for comparison or for even determining how much HP is put to the ground.
.
.
5. On a Dyna Pack hydraulic type chassis dyno that bolts directly to the hubs, and using SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 585, for a 22% drive train loss. These numbers are too far off to be of any use for comparison or for even determining how much HP is put to the ground.
.
.
Overall, these 5 chassis dyno’s ranged a whopping 86 RWHP, or 11% on the SAME car, with the exact SAME setup. Good luck trying to ever back calculate engine HP from these numbers, or even trying to determine how much HP is actually delivered to the ground.

However, if you only look at the 3 dyno’s above that used the same correction factor as the engine dyno, you’ll see that they produced reasonable numbers that actually are usable. They ranged only 24 HP or 3%, which is about as good as you are ever going to get. And this backs up the statement that you MUST use the SAME correction factor for both the engine dyno and the chassis dyno.

Also, new cars since ’72 have been rated in SAE NET engine HP. So, you can fairly reasonably use a chassis dyno that uses the same SAE NET HP correction factor for comparison there. But even that is a little iffy because the OEM’s often underrate their HP levels, so that introduces more error back into any comparison/back calculation.

If you don’t use the same correction factors for comparison, then all chassis dyno’s are really good for is to compare back to back changes you make while on that dyno. That way you are only looking at the differences, and not caring about what the absolutes truly are. If used in this manner, any random chassis dyno “can” be a useful tool for modifications (though it’s wise to make a few back to back pulls with no changes to see if the dyno is repeatable, because some are not).

And if you are using mismatched correction factors for comparison, don’t even bother trying to back calculate your engine HP, because you won’t get valid results. In addition to that, with all the other variables between dyno’s (due to different makes and models, strap tension, tire pressure, tire rubber compound, dyno cooling fan airflow, etc, etc), don’t put much stock in the amount of HP they claim you are putting to the ground either, since the numbers will be all over the place
.
So, at the end of the day, you have to decide for yourself if you think a Chassis Dyno session is even worth the time, cost and effort.

.

540 RAT

.

.

================================

.

.

==================================

.

.

  20. STD VOLUME OIL PUMPS VS HIGH VOLUME OIL PUMPS – IS THERE REALLY A HP DIFFERENCE?

.

When it comes to discussing/debating the topic of “std volume oil pumps vs high volume oil pumps”, we need something more than just opinion, emotion and speculation. We need actual real world comparison data. So, consider the following:

Awhile back, Car Craft Magazine used a 372ci SBC to do an oil pump volume comparison test. So, we can look at that actual real world test data to see how things stacked up. Here are the results using conventional petroleum 30 wt for each test:

Oil Pump…………………….Peak HP………………Ave. HP……………Ave. press.

Std volume/std pressure.………485……………………392…………………50 psi

High volume/High pressure……481……………………390………………….66 psi

High volume/std pressure……..477…………………….387…………………64 psi

As you can see, surprisingly the std pressure version of the high volume pump made the worst HP of these three small block pumps. It was down 8hp or down 1.6% for peak HP, and down 5hp or down 1.3% for Ave HP. It also provided a 14 psi increase in ave pressure, or a 28% increase in ave pressure.

But the High volume/high pressure pump was down only 4hp or down .8% for peak HP, and down only 2hp or down only .5% for Ave HP. This one provided a 16 psi increase in ave pressure, or a 32% increase in ave pressure.

Of course the most important number is the “average” HP loss, NOT the peak HP loss. Because peak is only a single data point, while average is across the whole rpm range being used.

Only the most hardcore racer could ever notice a 2hp or .5% HP loss, using the high volume/high pressure pump. So, THE USE OF THAT HIGH VOLUME/HIGH PRESSURE PUMP DID NOT CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF PERFORMANCE, as is the common “belief”. And the higher volume pump will provide better low rpm oil pressure, and allow for switching to much better thinner motor oils. More on that below.

And in the same article, Car Craft also tested different oil viscosities using the High volume/std pressure oil pump. Here are those results:

Oil………………Peak HP………Ave. HP………Ave. press…Ave. Flow in GPM 

0W10 syn…………480……………387………………56………………7.4

5W20 syn………….479……………386………………59………………7.2

20W50 syn………..477……………387………………67………………6.5

30W conventional..475…………….384………………67………………6.1

The 0W10 is probably thinner than all but the hardest of hardcore racers would care to use. And 20W50 is thickish and somewhat similar to the straight 30W.

But 30W conventional petroleum oil was used for the oil pump volume test at the top, so let’s use that as the main reference here for viscosity comparisons. And that leaves the more reasonable 5W20 synthetic for a quick viscosity comparison.

The 5W20 made 4hp more peak HP or about .8% more peak HP than the 30W. It also made 2hp more ave HP, or .5% more Ave HP than the 30W. So, HP increases with the thinner oil is not significant here, but it does offset the slight loss of hp from going to a high volume pump in the first place. The thinner 5W20 also drops a little oil pressure, but it’s still quite reasonable.

So, a larger volume oil pump loses a tad bit of HP and increases the oil pressure, but the thinner synthetic oil gains a tad bit of HP and decreases the oil pressure. In the end, it’s all pretty much a wash. So then what’s the point of making these changes at all?

To answer that, we need to look at the average flow in GPM (gallons per minute). The 5W20 flows a whopping 18% more than the straight 30W. So what’s the value in that you ask?

Well, many folks “believe” that oil pressure = lubrication, but that is simply NOT the case. Pressure is only a measurement of resistance to flow. But, oil FLOW is lubrication, and you get more flow with thinner oil as we just saw above. Lubrication is what is used to separate moving parts, and keep them from making metal to metal contact, which results in wear/damage. And increased flow also has another very important advantage. An engine’s vital internal components are all DIRECTLY OIL COOLED, but only INDIRECTLY water cooled. And thinner oil will flow more freely, carrying away more heat, thus providing better cooling for those vital internal components. And of course that extra cooling is even more important in high performance engines.

So, going to the trouble of achieving almost an extra 20% in flow, is well worth the effort. If someone asks why use a high volume pump, the answer is so that you can maintain reasonable oil pressure with thinner oil. And with thinner oil, you can improve both lubrication and cooling. So, it’s all good.

NOTE: To best see those oil temp changes and cooling improvements, you really need to observe that in a running car on the road or on the track. Because trying to observe this during brief dyno pulls, will likely result in you not getting a worthwhile picture of the true potential.

So, here are some comparison numbers for you from an 830 HP road race engine, on the track:

.

15W50 oil = 80 psi = 265* oil temp

.

5W20 oil = 65 psi = 240* oil temp

.

Here you can see how the thicker oil flowed more slowly through the bearings, thus getting hotter and driving up bearing temps. If an engine is running hot, use a thinner oil to increase flow and increase cooling. And running a high volume oil pump allows you to do that.

For me personally, I run 5W30 in my own 781 HP, 710 ft lb, 540ci BBC Street/Strip motor, which I intentionally built with .003 clearance on the rods and mains. And with a Titan gerotor “high volume/high pressure” oil pump, it has a hot idle oil pressure of about 30 psi, and a rock steady max oil pressure of 80 psi, which also shows that there is no sign of aerated oil with this setup. No issues, no problems.

CONCLUSION:
No matter what anyone else tells you, the “Ideal Lubrication Setup” for most traditional engines, is a high volume/high pressure oil pump with a thinner multi-viscosity motor oil such as 5W30.
.
540 RAT
.
.
================================
.
.
==================================
.
.
21.  Points Ignition vs Electronic Ignition
.

Every time I hear about someone having a failure with an aftermarket electronic ignition system that has been added to a traditional non-computer controlled car, it makes me wonder why those people are causing their own misery. For those cars, the only advantage an electronic ignition system has over a points ignition system is reduced maintenance/tuning, and a rev limiter feature, if a given system even has that feature. Keep in mind that a rev limiter, if you have one, is intended to only be a safety feature for the engine to prevent over revving in the case of a missed gear for example. You should NOT be shifting by bouncing off the rev limiter, you should be shifting by the tachometer’s shift light set to your shift point, if you have one of those. And you don’t need an electronic ignition system to have a tachometer shift light. You just need a tachometer that has one.

The advantages of an electronic ignition system is only a benefit until you have a failure that occurs without any warning, which is how electronic ignition systems fail. They work great right up until they suddenly fail without warning. And if this happens when you are out on the road, there is no roadside tinkering you can do to get it working again, which leaves you stranded dead in the water. All you can do at that point is call for a flatbed ride home. But, you don’t have to subject yourself to this possibility. Because the fact is, an electronic ignition system is NOT really going to help most Sportsman Racers, Hotrodders or Enthusiasts who are running old school traditional cars.

Guys who perform a lot of engine dyno testing, know that an electronic ignition system will NOT make even one more HP than a points ignition system. It seems that most people use electronic ignition systems in old school traditional cars, just because everybody else is doing it.

However, I don’t do things just because everyone else is doing it. So, I built my 540ci BBC as an old school throw back. And I used a brand new billet Mallory “dual point” distributor. That distributor has the best, easiest and largest mechanical advance adjustability of any distributor I’ve come across. I’m not afraid of a little bit of occasional points maintenance/tuning, because making adjustments and tuning, is all part of the fun of wrenching on Hotrod cars. And for most weekend cars, they have so little mileage put on them, that even points maintenance/tuning is a fairly rare thing. And the best thing about a points ignition system is its reliability. Because it won’t experience any weird failures without warning, so it won’t leave you stranded along side the road. If you ignore it long enough without any maintenance/tuning, the worst it will do is experience a slow degradation of starting and/or running performance. It will let you know it needs some attention long before it stops working altogether.

But, getting stranded by an electronic ignition system failure has happened to people I know, to people I’ve talked to, and to people I’ve just read about, who use MSD and other aftermarket electronic ignition system brands. It doesn’t always happen of course, but it happens way more often than you might think. In fact, one buddy of mine kept getting repeatedly stranded in his 500 HP, ’69 Corvette Hotrod by his electronic ignition system. He finally went back to points on my recommendation and has never had a problem again. So, I run points in my own 540 BBC, because there is no reason not to, and to avoid that dreaded flatbed ride home.

With an old school points ignition system, my 540 Street/Strip engine made the following numbers on the engine dyno:

Peak hp = 781 at 6,300 rpm
Peak torque ft lbs = 710 at 4,800 rpm

Ave hp between 4000 and 6700 rpm = 681
Ave torque ft lbs between 4000 and 6700 rpm = 670

Ave hp between 5700 and 6700 rpm = 764
Ave torque ft lbs between 5700 and 6700 rpm = 649

On top of all that, the engine starts immediately, and the throttle response is surprisingly crisp and quick. So, points ignition systems are still far better than most people think. They work just fine for me, even in the 21st century. And they can work just fine for you too.

540 RAT

.

===============================
.

===============================
.

.

22. How to choose your own Camshaft

Camshaft selection methodology can vary widely. Some people look through Cam Company Catalogs and try to follow the general guidelines provided there. Some call Cam Companies and talk to a representative. Some have software available that they can plug various cam numbers into, to see how they compare. Some decide based on their own previous experience. Some with a dyno, will test multiple cams. Some will test multiple cams at the track over time. Some use whatever their engine builder recommends. And some just ask their buddies.

.
But, because of all the variables related to selecting an optimum camshaft for any particular vehicle and its intended purpose, the final cam chosen can be one that many people do not agree on. People will argue about all the specifications of a camshaft, but LSA (lobe separation angle) is often the most hotly debated. Some will insist that you need a wide LSA for the best performance, while others will argue that a narrow LSA will provide the best performance. But, the fact is, both have proven to provide excellent performance in various applications.

.
So, where does all this leave the average Gear Head, Sportsman Racer, Hotrodder or Enthusiast who doesn’t have much, if any, cam selection experience, but would still like to understand how to choose his own cam rather than have someone else choose it for him? Of course he wants to get it right the first time, because he will typically have to live his choice.

I have software available, but instead of using it, I find myself working out all the details manually, because I can more precisely arrive at what I really want. Here is the methodology I used to select the cam for my own 540 cubic inch BBC (Big Block Chevy) Street/Strip Hotrod engine. This methodology is straight forward and can be used by anyone to select a proper cam for their own needs.

•  I had decided up front that I wanted a bad boy solid roller for the HP they can produce. So, that was my starting point.

.
• I also knew that I wanted a Hot Street/Strip cam that had an approximate max operating range up to 7,000 rpm (which is where I’d be setting my redline/shift point), and would also put the peak power in the desired mid-6,000 rpm range. I didn’t really need a higher rpm range because truth be told, it was going to be primarily a Street Hotrod.

.
• The max operating range is determined by the duration. If you look through various cam catalogs, you’ll see that for fairly large displacement BBC engines, an .050 duration of around 266/271 or so, will give you that 7,000 rpm max operating range. And this cam duration also calls for a static CR of about 11 to 1, to support that duration. So, that also gives you good direction on the static CR to target to work properly with the cam.

.
• Most cams of this duration range already come ground with a lift of around .700″ (with 1.7 rockers for a BBC) give or take a bit, depending on the cam company or particular grind you select. So, the amount of lift available, more or less falls out automatically for you. You just need to confirm that the amount of lift you get with your chosen duration, is acceptable with your heads. I would have liked a little more lift to take full advantage of the airflow capacity of the AFR 335cc CNC heads I’d decided to use. But, to get more lift, I’d typically have to choose a cam with more duration, which would be more duration than I wanted or needed. So, I stayed with the lift of about .700″. I had decided to go with Comp Cams which narrowed things down quite a bit. And I liked the aggressiveness and the tight lash design (only .016″ hot) of their Extreme Energy line of lobes. The lobes I chose, provide 303*/309* duration at .015, 266*/272* at .050, and 187*/193* at .200.

Look at the difference between the .050 duration and the .200 duration. My .050 to .200 intensity is 79* (from 266*-187* or 272*-193*). The larger the .200 duration, thus the smaller the .050 to .200 intensity, the larger and more aggressive the lobe. So, if you compare these to other lobes, you’ll see that they are fairly aggressive. I was happy with this selection direction, and was nearly done, with the exception of LSA (lobe separation angle) still remaining. Comp offered my cam lobes in different LSA’s, so I had to decide what I needed/wanted.

.
• Deciding on LSA is what really separates the men from the boys, when it comes to cam selection. This topic has generated many nasty arguments on the various Hotrod and Racing Forums over the years. I’ll say right up front that LSA is only a “by-product” of the chosen overlap, and is NOT the up-front goal. And this is what often causes discussions to degrade into an argument. The reason I say this is, for example, you can find a 110* LSA cam in any catalog that is intended for grandma’s grocery getter. You can also find a 110* LSA cam in any catalog that is intended for a Street/Strip Hotrod. And you can also find 110* LSA in any catalog that is intended for a dedicated Sportsman Drag car. So, as you can see, setting out to run a 110* LSA cam as your up-front goal, is of no value what so ever, because it DOES NOT define anything about a cam’s operational characteristics, since all three of those totally different cams, have the same LSA.

.
• Because I work out all the details up front, in order to arrive at the best possible end result, I had to determine the best “OVERLAP” for my needs, which absolutely defines a cam’s operational characteristics. I wanted an overlap value that would make serious power and torque as well as turn heads at any local cruise-in with an old-school lumpy sound. So, OVERLAP is the up-front goal, and LSA is only its by-product. Here’s what I used to focus in on the desired overlap:

.

“APPROXIMATE” SOLID LIFTER ADVERTISED OVERLAP PERFORMANCE REFERENCE CHART

300ci…………………400ci…………………500+ci……….Typical usage
10*…………………….25*………………. ….40*…………. towing
30*…………………….45*……………….. ….60*…………..ordinary street
50*…………………….62.5*…………….. ….75*……………street performance
70*…………………….80*……………………90*…………..street/strip
85*…………………….92.5*…………………100*…………..race
95*…………………….105*………………….115*…………..Pro race

Here’s the CORRECT way to calculate your cam’s ADVERTISED OVERLAP which is needed for the chart above:

.
• Add your intake and exhaust advertised duration (typically shown as duration at .015 tappet lift. NOTE: duration at .050 tappet lift will NOT give you the correct advertised duration value)

.
• Divide that answer by 4

.
• Subtract the lobe separation angle (LSA) from that answer

.
• Multiply that answer by 2, and you have the CORRECT advertised overlap to use in the chart above

.
NOTE: Because of the differences resulting from not having any lash, and the way hydraulic cam advertised duration is rated, if you want to figure the “advertised overlap” for a HYDRAULIC LIFTER cam, so that you can use the chart above, REDUCE the Hydraulic cam’s listed ADVERTISED DURATION (typically shown as duration at .006 tappet lift) by 8*, for both intake and exhaust, then follow the calculation procedure as shown above.

If you want to get an idea of what a given cam will sound like, you can take a look at this chart below. Here are some common engine sizes, and the approximate minimum, solid lifter advertised overlap needed, for that lumpy idle (at around 1,000 rpm) that will turn heads at the local cruise-in.

.
APPROXIMATE “MINIMUM”, SOLID LIFTER ADVERTISED OVERLAP LUMPY IDLE REFERENCE CHART

350ci………..77*
383ci………..78.5*
400ci………..80*
454ci………..84*
496ci………..87*
540ci………..90*
572ci………..92*
632ci………..96.5*

This chart is for idle speeds in the 950 to 1,000 rpm range. Slower idle speeds, will sound even lumpier. And LARGER advertised overlap numbers than shown here, will sound even lumpier as well.

So, as I said above, I wanted to choose an overlap that would make serious power and torque as well as turn heads at any local cruise-in. And for the Street/Strip performance category I targeted, 90* advertised overlap was the value in the ADVERTISED OVERLAP PERFORMANCE REFERENCE CHART above.

Likewise 90* advertised overlap just met the threshold of making a nice lumpy idle in the LUMPY IDLE REFERENCE CHART. So, now that the required overlap had been decided on, I just needed to choose a LSA for my cam, that Comp Cams offered, that would be closest to this overlap value. In the end their cam with the 108* LSA met this requirement the 90* advertised overlap exactly. You might say that I pretty much came up with a sweet spot for my intended build. Now my cam selection was complete and after installing the cam “straight up”, meaning not advanced or retarded, the engine performance met or exceeded all my intended goals. So, I was more than pleased with my cam selection.

Here are some engine dyno values from this 540 ci Street/Strip BBC engine:

Peak hp = 781 at 6,300 rpm
Peak torque ft lbs = 710 at 4,800 rpm

Ave hp between 4000 and 6700 rpm = 681
Ave torque ft lbs between 4000 and 6700 rpm = 670

Ave hp between 5700 and 6700 rpm = 764
Ave torque ft lbs between 5700 and 6700 rpm = 649

My cam selection methodology is not unusual. Because after I had already selected/bought/installed my cam, I found that my methodology is essentially identical to what Comp Cams guru Billy Godbold recommended in a magazine interview. He said the following:

• Choose duration based on desired rpm
• Choose lift based on head flow
• Choose desired overlap, then let the LSA fall where it may

It’s not surprising that he and I would use the same process for cam selection, because this is how cams/engines work. So, we “should” be using the same methodology.

You can use the methodology above to make an informed decision about the cam you select “yourself” for your own engine, by taking into consideration its displacement, desired operating rpm range, and the intended usage. This will get you extremely close to the optimum cam for your needs. To get any closer, you’d need to dyno or track test various very similar cams in order to split hairs to determine which one might be slightly better.

540 RAT

.

========================

.

=========================

.

.

23. Multi-viscosity motor oils are not exactly what some people think

Multi-viscosity motor oils are in “one way” what most people think they are. And that is, rated as a thinner viscosity when cold, than when they are hot. But, that’s where it ends for many people, because the details are NOT as simple as they might seem. So, many people get confused and misunderstand what all this means.
.
When cautioned about running a stone-cold engine too hard, some will say they don’t have to worry about that because they are running a multi-viscosity oil. And that is not coming from kids in High School Auto Shop Class who are just starting out. That has come from old timers who have been car guys for decades, and they still do not understand how multi-viscosity motor oil works. So, here is some basic motor oil tech information to clear things up.
.
• A multi-viscosity motor oil is identified by its viscosity rating at two temperatures. It is rated at the cold temperature of 0*F, which is represented by the first number, the one in front of the “W”. It is also rated at the hot temperature of 212*F, which is represented by the second number, the one after the “W”. For example, 5W30 is rated as a 5wt when cold and rated as a 30wt when hot. These are the type of numbers everyone is most familiar with.

But, that DOES NOT mean that 5W30 is thinner when it is cold. And that is where people get confused and misunderstand what is really going on. The confusion comes in because of the temperatures at which the oil was rated. 0*F and 212*F are apples and oranges, or two completely different scales.

• EVERY motor oil thins out as it heats up and thickens as it cools down, no matter if it is a straight weight or a multi-viscosity. You can get a feel for this by checking the oil on your dipstick when it is cold, thick, and drips slowly. Then check it again when it is hot, thin, and drips almost like water. And keep in mind that thinner oil flows more freely through all the restrictions inside an engine, compared to thicker oil that flows more slowly through those restrictions.

Mechanical Engineers design engines with certain clearances, to be used with a certain motor oil viscosity, in order to provide the proper oil flow rate/lubrication/cooling needed for a long and trouble free life. Of course the engine has to start-up and run when cold, but it will spend 99% of its operational life at normal operating temperatures. So, if an engine was designed to use 5W30, that means it was intended to be properly lubricated 99% of the time, by a motor oil rated as a 30wt when hot.
.
But, also keep in mind that oil pressure, in and of itself, is NOT what we are after. Oil pressure is only a measurement of resistance to flow. And oil pressure is NOT lubrication. You can have lots of oil pressure, such as at cold start-up, while at the same time having very little oil flow, such as with heavy viscosity oil, which is NOT a good thing. We need oil pressure only to generate the oil flow we need. Oil FLOW is lubrication, so that is what we are after.
.
And any reduction in the intended oil flow rate/lubrication, would compromise the wear protection an engine was designed to have. Of course oil flow rate/lubrication is important throughout an engine, but it is extremely important to have sufficient oil flow to maintain the incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge that is formed between the crankshaft journals and the rod and main bearings. And any oil thicker than a hot 30wt for the engine example above, would reduce that intended oil flow rate/lubrication. If the flow rate/lubrication is reduced enough, unnecessary wear can occur. And if flow rate/lubrication is reduced even more, actual engine damage can result (more on that below).
.
So, let’s take a look at what is specifically going on with motor oil at cold start-up vs what is going on with it at hot operating temperature. For this comparison purpose, multi-grade motor oil viscosity properties are typically given at 40*C (104*F) and at 100*C (212*F). And its thickness is given in an accurate measurement called centistokes (cSt). The HIGHER the cSt value, the THICKER the oil.
.
The cold 40*C (104*F which is only slightly above normal temperature for humans) temperature shown below will be used to represent cold start-up conditions, though at more common colder temperatures, the oil will be even thicker yet. And the hot 100*C (212*F) temperature shown below will be used to represent hot operating conditions, though at more common higher temperatures, the oil will be thinner yet. Keep in mind, as mentioned above, EVERY motor oil thins out as it heats up and thickens as it cools down, no matter what its identifying viscosity rating is.

Typical Examples of Actual Motor Oil Thickness (But, any individual oil’s specific thickness may vary)

cSt @ cold 40*C (104*F)   /   cSt @ hot 100*C (212*F)

0W20 = 44.9    /    8.5,  or 5.3 times thicker when cold

0W30 = 53.8       /      9.6,  or 5.6 times thicker when cold
.
0W40 = 79.9     /      14.3, or 5.6 times thicker when cold
—–
5W20 = 51.6      /      9.0, or 5.7 times thicker when cold
.
5W30 = 62.4     /      10.8, or 5.8 times thicker when cold
.
5W40 = 87.2     /      14.7, or 5.9 times thicker when cold
—–
10W30 = 71.8     /      11.5, or 6.2 times thicker when cold

SAE 30 = 98.0  /     11.4, or 8.6 times thicker when cold, this straight weight oil was added to the list for comparison purposes
.
10W40 = 96.5     /      14.7, or 6.6 times thicker when cold

SAE 40 = 165.0  /    14.0, or 11.8 times thicker when cold, this straight weight oil was added to the list for comparison purposes
.
10W60 = 168.5    /    24.1, or 7.0 times thicker when cold
—–
15W40 = 105.0     /      14.8, or 7.1 times thicker when cold
.
15W50 = 133.8     /      20.2, or 6.6 times thicker when cold
—–
20W50 = 170.0   /      20.2, or 8.4 times thicker when cold
.
Notice how the thickness of the hot viscosity rating (the number AFTER the W) of any given oil above, also affects the thickness of the cold viscosity rating (the number BEFORE the W). For example, 5W20 and 5W40 both have a cold viscosity rating of 5, but the cold thickness of 5W20 is 51.6 cSt, while the cold thickness of 5W40 is 87.2 cSt, or 1.7 times thicker when cold, even though they both have the same cold viscosity rating of 5.

And as you can see above, even at these modest cold and hot temperatures that motor oil thickness values are typically available for, the oil is WAY, WAY THICKER when cold, than it is when hot. And the difference is even GREATER at more normal colder start-up and hotter operational temperatures. So, that means that at cold start-up, oil flow rate/lubrication will be GREATLY REDUCED, even if you are using the recommended multi-viscosity motor oil. But even so, multi-viscosity oils are still a good thing, because they would be even thicker yet when cold, if they were straight wt oils.

For example, comparing SAE 30 straight weight oil above, to 0W30, 5W30 and 10W30, we see that SAE 30 when cold, is 1.8 times thicker than cold 0W30, 1.6 times thicker than cold 5W30, and 1.4 times thicker than cold 10W30. So, that means that SAE 30 provides extremely poor flow/lubrication during cold startup and during warm-up, compared to multi-viscosity 30 weight oils.

COLD START-UP AND WARM-UP ENGINE WEAR:
Most engine wear takes place during cold start-up before the cold thick oil flow can reach all the components, when only residual oil is present (the longer an engine has been sitting and the thicker the oil viscosity is, the more of a concern this becomes), and during warm-up while the oil is still thicker and not flowing as freely as it does during normal hot operating temperature. So, quicker flowing thinner oil will help reduce cold start-up and warm-up engine wear. 0W30 and 5W30 are ideal viscosities for most water-cooled stock or modified gasoline engines. Therefore, using much thicker when cold SAE 30 is one of the worst things you can do to your engine, compared to using multi-viscosity 30 weight oils.

NOTE: Once an engine reaches normal operating temperature, which is also when the motor oil has reached its much thinner hot operating viscosity, little to no engine wear takes place. Of course that assumes you are using a motor oil that performs well enough for your particular application and the way it is used.

This will likely surprise a lot of people. Notice that cold 5W20 at 51.6 cSt, is 2.6 times THICKER, than hot 20W50 at 20.2 cSt. Now you know that a low viscosity cold rating does NOT mean the oil is thin when it’s cold.

CONCLUSION:

The best way to protect your engine, when dealing with thick, poor flowing, cold oil, is simple. If you run an engine too hard when it’s stone-cold, you can cause unnecessary wear or even damage, due to the reduced oil flow rate/lubrication. But, all you have to do to avoid that problem, and to protect your engine, is to run it easy with small throttle openings and try not to exceed 2,500 rpm or so, for the 10 or 15 minutes it takes for it to reach normal operating temperature. All you need is a little patience, and then you can run it hard without any concern about lubrication.
.
NOTE: You DO NOT need to start-up your engine, then let it sit and idle to warm-up. That is a complete waste of fuel, and makes useless exhaust pollution for absolutely no good reason. Just start it up, put it in gear, and drive it easy, as discussed just above, until it is fully warmed up.
.
But, if you don’t have the patience to wait for an engine to reach normal operating temperature before hammering it, then here is an example of what can happen to it. I have a next door neighbor lady who used to drive a Chevy Tahoe SUV. And when I happened so see her leave in the morning, I noticed that she would back out of her driveway, put it in Drive, and floor it………on a stone-cold engine. I thought, if she keeps that up, she’s going to ruin her engine. And every time I saw her leave, that was her normal routine. Of course she is just a normal lady who is not the least bit technical, so she had no idea she was doing anything wrong. To her, flooring her Tahoe with a stone-cold engine, was no different than switching her blender on to “high”.
.
She kept up that routine for maybe a year or more. Then when I would happen to see her leave, I started hearing a rod knock as she took off, which didn’t surprise me at all. And she continued to drive it like that for maybe another year. But, the knock continued to get worse over time, which is a perfect example of the engine not having sufficient oil flow to fully maintain the extremely important incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge that is formed between the crankshaft journals and the rod and main bearings.

The rod knock finally got so bad, that she traded the Tahoe off for another vehicle. Funny thing, someone must have clued her in, because she has never once driven the new vehicle like that. And it has been fine now for two or three years. I guess she learned her lesson……..the hard way. So, it would be wise to learn from her mistake and avoid doing the same thing to your own engine.
.

540 RAT

.

==============================

.

==============================

24.  Air conditioning isn’t just for cooling your vehicle

Everyone knows of course, that air conditioning (A/C) cools a vehicle’s interior to keep it comfortable in hot weather. But, what many people do not know, is that A/C can do more than just cool a vehicle. There’s a reason it isn’t just called “air cooling”.

In my Tech Article, “23. Multi-viscosity motor oils are not exactly what some people think”, I mentioned:

“You DO NOT need to start-up your engine, then let it sit and idle to warm-up. That is a complete waste of fuel, and makes useless exhaust pollution for absolutely no good reason. Just start it up, put it in gear, and drive it easy, until it is fully warmed up.”

This was in reference to any cold motor oil, including multi-viscosity oil, being much thicker, thus much slower flowing, than normal operational temperature oil flow that engines are designed for.

But, some people told me they have to let their vehicle sit and idle to warm-up in cold damp weather, so that their defroster can work to remove the fog from the windows inside the vehicle. And if they don’t wait long enough, the defroster can actually make the inside fog even worse, to the point that if they were driving, they’d have to pull over to the side of the road and wait, because they could not see out to drive safely.

That is true, BUT ONLY if you don’t know what is available at your fingertips, in most street driven vehicles. The A/C is called air “conditioning” for a reason. It also conditions the air by acting as a dehumidifier. And A/C systems are designed to work just fine, no matter if you have the temperature set to cold, hot, or anywhere in between.
In fact, something many people don’t know, is that an air conditioning “cycle”, is either “ON” or “OFF”, like an ordinary light switch. There is no “in-between”, the cycle is either operating or it’s not. So, air conditioning systems are designed to have their “coldness” controlled by adding heater “heat” to the cold air, as desired. The amount of heat added, is what you are adjusting when you change the interior temperature controller, to a level that is warmer than max cold, aside from the recycled air or fresh air setting.

So, in cold damp weather, when you fire the vehicle up in the morning, and the windows start trying to fog up inside, just turn on the A/C, set the fan speed and the temperature heat level as desired, and the fog will very quickly disappear. That way you don’t have to let the vehicle sit there and “warm-up” before you can drive away. This works very well, no matter if you have the controls set to recycled air or fresh air. It also works very well, no matter which vents you have flowing air.

This allows you to have a comfortable interior without the inside windows being fogged up. And as the interior warms-up, you can adjust the amount of heat as desired, and leave the A/C on to prevent any fogging on the inside. In this mode, you are operating what you might call an air conditioned heater, which is a nice capability to have. But, if you want, you can turn the A/C off once the fog is all gone. And if the fog starts to return, just turn the A/C back on. You paid handsomely for this feature, so you might as well make full use of its design capabilities.

.

540 RAT

.

=================================

.

=================================

.

25. Recommended Oil Change Interval – For Automobiles “AND” Motorcycles, including Motor Oil Age Info

I normally don’t mention anything about oil change intervals, figuring that everyone can decide that for themselves. But, I’ve had a number of people contact me to ask what oil change interval they should use. So, I put together the following write-up, to address that question.
.
There is quite a wide variation when it comes to recommended oil change intervals for normal daily driven street vehicles. Vehicle owners get recommendations from:
.
• Quickie Oil Change places that usually call for 3,000 mile change intervals.

• Owner’s Manuals that now can often say 7,500 miles or more.

• Modern vehicle computerized dashboard oil change indicators that can vary anywhere from about 5,000 to 10,000 miles, depending on the model, brand and driving habits.

• Then there are the premium synthetic oils from mainstream Oil Companies and from Companies that only sell premium synthetic oils, who try to get you to buy their extra expensive motor oil, by saying you can use extra long oil change intervals, such as anywhere from 15,000 to 25,000 miles, or even annually.

.
Trying to make sense of all those conflicting recommendations is enough to give some people a headache. So, let’s see if we can make some sense out of all this.
.
• You can completely ignore the 3,000 mile oil change interval called for by the Quickie Oil Change places. There is no technical reason to change oil that often in normal daily driven street vehicles. Of course it doesn’t hurt the engine if you do, but it is simply a waste of money and resources, while increasing environmental waste, with virtually no benefit to your engine. This recommended change interval is only so those Oil Change places can make more money off the unsuspecting motoring public.

• Owner’s Manuals have been known to drastically revise their recommended oil change intervals to far longer, at a model year change, even when nothing has changed on the model involved. This happens because Auto Makers can use longer oil change intervals to claim a reduced cost of ownership, while at the same time reducing environmental waste.

But, the reality is, it does not truly mean that the same vehicle as the previous year model, with the same oil, can now magically go perhaps an extra 50% or more between oil changes. These longer intervals are driven by Corporate Business decisions, not by Engineering decisions. It has gotten so ridiculous with some vehicles, that you are better off to ignore the overly long oil change intervals that are now commonly printed in Owner’s Manuals.
.
• It is fairly common for the computerized dashboard oil change indicators in modern vehicles to not match the vehicle’s own Owner’s Manual. Of course the Owner’s Manual numbers are an overall approximation of driving conditions and driving habits, where the computerized dashboard indicator takes into account engine temp, throttle opening, rpm, etc, etc. So, some people might assume that the computer is more precise than the Manual. But, don’t believe it, because the computer is programmed for extra long oil change intervals for the same reasons as the extra long oil change intervals printed in the Manuals.

I have a late model daily driver vehicle myself, with a computer oil change indicator that shows that I should go “TWICE” as long between oil changes, compared to my previous similar model from the same maker, which was only a few years older, all while they both were driven exactly the same. And of course the computer doesn’t know if I’m using cheapo discount conventional motor oil or very expensive premium synthetic oil, labeled as extended change interval motor oil. So, once again, you are better off to ignore the overly long oil change intervals that are now commonly indicated by the computer.

• Then we have the premium synthetic oils from mainstream Oil Companies, as well as from Oil Companies that only sell premium synthetic oils. And retail prices on those premium oils tend to be so high that their sales are weak in the marketplace. So, those Companies devised a Marketing strategy which advertises that their oils are so good that buyers can use far longer change intervals, such as anywhere from 15,000 to 25,000 miles, or even annually. Their idea is, since customers can buy their oil less often, that it will offset the super high cost of the oil, in an attempt to convince the general public that the high price is justifiable. All in hopes of increasing sales and profits. But of course, Marketing/Advertising being what it is, they leave out the dirty little secret that, no matter how good any oil is, or how much it costs, it will still get extremely dirty and contaminated, thus needing changing, WAY, WAY BEFORE that many miles. More on that below.

.

Now we’ve seen that all the various recommendations above have only the interests of others in mind, rather than your best interest or your engine’s best interest in mind. Therefore, it is best not follow those oil change interval recommendations, if you really care about doing what’s best for your wallet and for your engine. So then, what oil change interval should we use?
.
I’ll answer that by telling you the oil change intervals I’ve used in normal daily driven street vehicles for years, why I do it, and why I recommend others do the same. Then you can decide for yourself.
.
I use a 5,000 mile oil change interval in my own normal daily driven street vehicles. This interval is long enough that it lets you get your money’s worth from the cost of the oil change without causing any negative impact to an engine. Changing oil much sooner than that, obviously does not hurt engine, but you’d be throwing money away for no reason, since shorter intervals provide no benefit to an engine.

.

—————– USED MOTOR OIL TEST DATA SUMMARY
.
I’ve sent a number of quality used motor oils with 5,000 or so miles on them, to a motor oil Lab for component quantity testing, to see how much the additive package components had been depleted during that interval. Here’s what I found, on average, for that group of oils:
.
• The overall anti-wear package component levels had dropped by about 24%
.
• The detergent level dropped by about 9%
.
• And the TBN (acid neutralizer) dropped by a significant 51%
The reason so much of the additive package was still available in the used oils I had tested, was because those oils were subjected to only normal daily driving. And additive package component quantities are typically high enough to begin with, so that they won’t be totally depleted prematurely by severe/extreme usage, such as racing, heavy loading, towing, mountainous or off/road operation, extended idling, mostly short trip operation, or extended hot or cold operation, that could take place, where the additive package would be used up at a faster pace.
.
I also performed my normal Engineering Wear Protection Capability Testing procedure (which is worst case motor oil torture testing, designed to find a motor oil’s ultimate capability or failure point, which is what we compare) on those “USED” oils with 5,000 or so miles on them. These were all well-known quality name brand “USED” motor oils, drained from different brands and models of normal daily driven vehicles, driven by different drivers.

However, “USED” motor oils are not listed on my Wear Protection Ranking List, because my Ranking List is made up of only brand new oils, so that we have a standard consistent baseline for the comparison of numerous motor oils.

It turned out that those “USED” motor oils produced mixed test results because of varying degrees of contamination, abrasive particulate build-up, dilution from fuel and/or condensation water, general deterioration, and chemical changes, as mileage accumulated on them. Here is a Summary of the wear testing results of those “USED” oils:

• There was no loss of wear protection capability in some of those “USED” oils, which produced PSI levels similar to when they were new, even though the zinc/phos (ZDDP) level in particular, had dropped by about 25%. And that is clear “PROOF” that ZDDP levels DO NOT determine wear protection capability.

• Some of those “USED” oils produced PSI levels that were as much as 10% HIGHER than when they were new. Again, even though the zinc/phos (ZDDP) level in particular, had dropped by about 25%. And that is still further “PROOF” that ZDDP levels DO NOT determine wear protection capability.

• And some of those “USED” oils totally failed my normal motor oil torture testing procedure, and completely seized, which was quite alarming. However, engines don’t typically load their motor oil as severely as my Engineering testing does. So, these total oil failures don’t necessarily mean that it will happen in any given engine. Again, my testing is worst case motor oil torture testing, designed to find a motor oil’s ultimate capability or failure point, which is what we compare. But, these total oil failures do point out how far “USED” oil capability can fall. And how much closer your engine could be to experiencing oil related trouble.

• These mixed test results did not correlate with any particular motor oil brand, motor oil product line, viscosity, or type of motor oil.

• And these mixed test results, are additional proof that if you care about providing your engine with the best possible wear protection, you should use reasonable oil change intervals, NOT extended oil change intervals.

Because following reasonable oil change intervals, is by far the best plan for changing “USED” oil before its uncertain wear protection capability could fall to an undesirable level. Using reasonable oil change intervals, is essentially “Insurance” on providing the best possible protection for your engine. But, if you use extended oil change intervals, you are effectively playing Russian Roulette with your engine for no good reason. And depending on how severely your engine loads its oil, you could be risking unnecessary wear and/or damage, that may or may not be readily apparent in the early stages.

The primary purpose of this Blog is to provide readers with information they can use to provide their engines with the best possible protection. I am a Mechanical Design Engineer, and I deal with “Margin of Safety” on a daily basis. And using reasonable oil change intervals, provides your engine with a higher “Margin of Safety”. So, that is why I recommend the ideal oil change interval of 5,000 miles on conventional or synthetic oil, for normal daily driver vehicles. It is simply the right thing to do, if you really care about your engine.
.
—————-

.

Motor oil factory additive package component quantity depletion, as mileage accumulates on the oil, is normal. The various components are used up as they do their job, by decomposition/breakdown, by adhesion to metal, condensation water and particulate matter surfaces, and by the separation process of filtration and settling. In fact, you can often see additive package component settling at the bottom of white motor oil bottles, if you don’t thoroughly shake the bottle before pouring the oil into your engine.

If you pour motor oil out of a white bottle that was not shaken, that has been sitting for a long time, then look down inside the bottle, you will often see what looks like dirty residue in the bottom. But, in a brand new bottle of oil that is NOT dirty residue, that is a percentage of your factory additive package. So, ALWAYS thoroughly SHAKE bottles of motor oil BEFORE pouring them into your engine, if you want all the benefits that the factory additive package can provide.

After 5,000 miles of normal daily driving, there was still plenty of additive package remaining in the oils tested above. BUT, that absolutely does NOT mean that you should keep using motor oil until those components are completely exhausted. Here’s why.
.
One of the primary reasons your oil gets dirty, is because of combustion by-products getting past the rings from blow-by, and entering the crankcase into your oil. And this has nothing to do with how high tech the engine may be, or how good or how expensive an oil might be. This happens to ALL motor oils in all engines. And oil filters CANNOT filter out this contamination from the oil, no matter how good some filters may be. Because oil filters only filter out particulate matter (see my Tech Article #49 for more details on that). Filthy contaminated dirty oil will flow right through any oil filter. So, continuing to run filthy dirty contaminated oil in your engine, would be like using the same filthy dirty contaminated bath water for months, and months, and months. You could physically do that, but you would never be clean. And even if you used “Very Expensive Premium Imported Drinking Water” in your bath tub, it of course would not change the fact that you were using filthy dirty contaminated bath water. The same thing applies to your engine, and makes no difference how good the motor oil was to begin with.

.
In addition to this, small amounts of fuel also get past the rings, particularly during cold start-up and during initial warm-up, when the engine is running extra rich with fuel. This fuel slowly dilutes your oil, again no matter how good the oil is, or how much it costs. So, this is another important reason to use reasonable oil change intervals, rather than extended change intervals.
.
And if filthy dirty contaminated diluted oil isn’t a good enough reason to avoid using extended oil change intervals, consider the following. Every motor oil is different, so it would be very difficult to establish a general oil change guideline to use, to get closer to the limit of total component quantity depletion, that would be safe to use for every motor oil, without going too long on certain oils and run the risk of totally depleting those critical additives. And if an oil is subjected to severe/extreme usage, then it makes this issue even worse.
.
And to further complicate things, even motor oils that are marketed as extended change interval motor oils, don’t all follow the same plan for the amount of extra additive package quantity put in an oil, which might allow you to even consider going longer. If you look at ” Section 4 – Motor Oil component quantity Lab Test results”, in my Blog, you will see that some name brand motor oils have extra additive package component quantities in their oils marketed as extended change interval oils. But, other name brand oils marketed as extended change interval oils, only have normal change interval additive package component quantities. And the normal change interval oils they sell, actually have below average quantities of additive package components.
.
So, the only way you could ever safely consider running motor oils longer than reasonable (if you don’t care enough about your engine to consider the filthy dirty contaminated diluted oil aspect), whether the oils are marketed as extended change interval oils or not, is to take a small sample of the oil being used, and send it into a motor oil Lab for component quantity testing every few thousand miles, after you’ve reached a normal change interval mileage. That way you could make sure you don’t ever run completely out of critical additive package components. But, of course that is simply way too much trouble for most people to ever bother with.
.
And if all that isn’t bad enough, remember that motor oil also deteriorates any time it reaches its onset of thermal breakdown point. And that thermal breakdown point varies widely from oil to oil, with many oils reaching that point as low as 250*F. Oil temps are not the same everywhere inside a running engine. Typical main bearing oil temps can be 55*-90*F higher than sump temps. So, oil temp gauges installed in an oil pan can give a false sense of what max oil temps actually are inside an engine. And once any oil, conventional or synthetic, has reached its onset of thermal breakdown point, the lighter oil fractions will begin to vaporize, leaving thicker and heavier oil. This will over time, contribute to poor circulation, reduced fuel economy, increased oil consumption, increased wear and increased emissions. So, with extended oil change intervals, you need to consider that most oils have also been deteriorating from exposure to temps that have exceeded its thermal breakdown point.
.
Are we done looking at all the bad things about using extended drain intervals? Not yet. Many multi-viscosity motor oils, particularly conventional oils, use viscosity modifiers/improvers to reduce how much they thin out as their temperature increases. Unfortunately, viscosity modifiers/improvers break down when exposed to heat and mechanical shearing, thus reducing the oil’s viscosity as mileage accumulates. So, oils that use a lot of viscosity improvers, should not be used for extended change intervals. However, true synthetic oils are typically Engineered to meet multi-viscosity requirements without viscosity modifiers/improvers. So, those synthetics do have an advantage over other synthetics and conventional oils in that regard. But, for those synthetics having this one advantage, it does not cancel out all the other problems that every oil has regarding extended change intervals.
.

In addition to that, when using extended oil change intervals, wear accumulations and insolubles that are too small to be filtered out, can build up in the oil and become abrasive. Of course the only thing you can do about that, is to change the oil.
.
And finally, to add insult to injury, extended oil change intervals have resulted in excessive sludge build-up, which can destroy engines, if it gets bad enough. Some years back, wide spread engine sludge problems cost Toyota millions and millions of dollars, to replace a huge number of engines in Toyota and Lexus vehicles. And their sludge problem was traced to, you guessed it, their recommended unusually long oil change intervals.

.

Therefore, there is absolutely NO technical benefit what so ever, to using extended oil change intervals. All of the above, points out that extended oil change intervals make no sense at all, because only bad things are very likely to happen.

*******

IS ADDITIONAL EXTRA-FINE BY-PASS OIL FILTRATION A GOOD IDEA FOR GASOLINE ENGINES, IN ORDER TO EXTEND OIL CHANGE INTERVALS?

Oil filters can only filter out “particulate matter”, nothing else, no matter how small a particle they can filter out. You need to carefully re-read this Tech Article, and you will see that particulate matter elimination is “only one” of the many reasons to change your oil at reasonable intervals.

Using additional fine particulate by-pass oil filtration in an attempt to extend drain intervals, CANNOT possibly stop normal additive package component depletion that takes place as the oil does its job in a running engine. Those additive package components will ALWAYS be used up a little at a time, as the engine is operated. And Companies that sell additional fine particulate by-pass filtration systems, and claim that filtering out additional fine particulates will prevent depletion of the oil’s additive package components, are spewing total nonsense, and are committing blatant snake oil false advertising. Buyer beware.

Similarly, an analogy would be that the tread on your tires will ALWAYS wear down a little at a time, as you drive your vehicle. But, if a town claimed that their super clean road surfaces would prevent tire tread wear, that would be total nonsense in the same way.

As shown above, and I will repeat it here for your convenience, I’ve sent a number of quality used oils with 5,000 miles on them, that used conventional oil filters, to a motor oil Lab for component quantity testing, to see how much the additive package components had been depleted during that interval. Here’s what I found, ON AVERAGE (some of those oils didn’t even do this well), for that group of oils:

• The overall anti-wear package component levels had dropped by about 24%

• The detergent level dropped by about 9%

• And the TBN (acid neutralizer) dropped by a significant 51%

The reason so much of the additive package was still available in the used oils I had tested, was because those oils were subjected to only normal daily driving in gasoline vehicles. And additive package component quantities are typically high enough to begin with, so that they won’t be totally depleted prematurely by severe/extreme usage, such as racing, heavy loading, towing, mountainous or off/road operation, extended idling, mostly short trip operation, or extended hot or cold operation, that could take place, where the additive package would be used up at a faster pace.

Claims are sometimes made that heavy-duty diesel trucks using additional by-pass filtration systems can extend their drain intervals without affecting the additive packages.

They carefully worded their statement so that it was not technically wrong, since as I said, particulate filtration has no affect on additive package component quantities. And what that misleading statement suggests to unsuspecting customers, that they don’t have to be concerned with the additive package component quantity, is only sales propaganda. Because they intentionally left out the critical fact that extra particulate filtration CANNOT possibly “stop” additive package components from continued depletion over time and accumulated mileage.

Other claims stating that extensive on-road testing and oil analyses, on gasoline engines using additional by-pass filtration systems, even after 30,000 miles, does not adversely affect the viscosity, wear metals and oxidation (TAN/TBN) levels in the oil.

But, that statement is also misleading, because as I said before, additional by-pass filtration affects nothing more that particulates. So, of course it does not adversely affect anything else. But, their implication that everything is still wonderful after 30,000 miles on the oil, is NOT supported by the facts. Just look at the additive package component depletion numbers I provided above, ON AVERAGE, after only 5,000 miles of normal daily driver street usage, using conventional filtration. Some of the oils didn’t even do that well. So, if anyone believes they can magically go “6 times longer” on their oil’s additive package before it reaches total depletion, by simply using extra particulate filtration, they are falling victim to completely false advertising. All these Companies want to do is separate gullible buyers from their money.

And as you’ve seen in this Tech Article, there is a lot more to changing oil at reasonable intervals than just particulate matter removal and additive package component depletion. So, even if you used extra particulate by-pass filtration to stretch your oil until just when the last of its additive package components reached total depletion, you will have ignored all the other important reasons to change your oil at reasonable intervals.

In conclusion, just because diesel trucking companies typically get away with using the extra by-pass filtration, to save money by changing their oil far less often, does NOT mean it is the right thing to do for all engines. Keep in mind that diesel engines are designed and built extremely ruggedly for the heavy duty type of work they are used for. So, their internal components are quite large, which results in significantly lower psi loading on those components, compared to the same components in most gasoline engines. And that is why traditional heavy duty diesel oils are not formulated to provide the impressive levels of wear protection we’d expect to see with gasoline engine oils. Gasoline engines are typically much more highly stressed in terms of component psi loading, than diesel engines are. That is why using traditional heavy duty diesel oil in high performance gasoline engines, is such a bad idea.

Comparing diesel engines to gasoline engines is comparing apples to oranges. So, do not allow yourself to be convinced that what you can get away with regarding diesel engines, is automatically the right thing to do with gasoline engines. Therefore, I do NOT recommend using additional extra-fine particulate by-pass filtration on gasoline engine vehicles, in an attempt to extend the oil change intervals. If you want to provide your gasoline engines with the best possible protection, see just below, and then read this entire Tech Article again, very carefully.

*******

Recommendation if additional Oil Filtration is Desired

The use of an oil filter snap-on external magnet such as Filtermag, is an excellent additional improvement to any engine’s oil filtration system. I use them myself. The whole point of an oil filter snap-on external magnet, is that it can pull out finer metal particles than the oil filter’s own element can, with NO increase in flow restriction. It installs instantly and can be removed instantly. It is very simple and does not add to the oiling system’s complexity. And there are no connections to leak or fail. This is a one-time purchase that can be reused indefinitely, so it is a good value. It is another layer of protection that enhances the overall filtering capability, with no down side, no matter what oil filter you are using.

But, it does NOT affect oil and filter change intervals at all. I do NOT recommend using this with the misguided idea that you can then change the oil filter “every other time”. That is pure nonsense. When you change oil, you should ALWAYS change the oil “AND” the filter at the same time. Because you should get rid of the particulates and the old oil that are in the old filter. So, you should still change your oil and filter at reasonable intervals, whether or not you use an external magnet on your oil filter.

.

*******

.
BOTTOM LINE:
By the time a normal daily driven street vehicle reaches 5,000 miles on its conventional or synthetic oil, that oil is dark, dirty, contaminated, is becoming more and more diluted as time goes on, has been suffering some thermal breakdown deterioration, if it uses viscosity modifiers/improvers, it is nearing the point where those viscosity modifiers/improvers will be breaking down enough to start affecting the oil’s viscosity, and abrasive wear accumulations and insolubles will have started to build-up.

.

So, by that point, any motor oil is in definite need of changing. And by changing it then, you will also prevent any concerns about sludge formation. People who go much longer than a 5,000 mile oil change interval, just don’t understand the numerous technical reasons why that is NOT a good idea, even if they use very expensive premium synthetic oils marketed as extended change interval oil. But, now they know, so they can make a more educated decision about the oil change interval that is best for their engine.

.
CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION:
.

• I recommend 5,000 mile oil change intervals, or one year, whichever comes FIRST, for conventional or synthetic oils, in “normally driven” ordinary daily driver street vehicles, for all the reasons discussed above. And it works out that it is also convenient to see when an oil change is due, by simply looking for 5,000 mile increments on the odometer.

• For Classic Hotrods, newer modern High Performance vehicles, or ANY vehicles that are “driven aggressively” much of the time, even if they are not driven very often, and for anyone who simply wants to provide THE ABSOLUTE BEST protection for their vehicle, I recommend changing the oil every 3,000 miles or one year, whichever comes FIRST.

• For Race Cars, or Street/Strip Cars, due to the oil’s extreme loading and typically elevated operating temperature, I recommend changing the oil after every race.

• Read the following “Link” for additional “PROOF”, validating what I have been saying for YEARS, that 5,000 miles is the BEST oil change interval to follow for “normally driven” ordinary daily driver vehicles. And to avoid every Automaker’s RIDICULOUSLY LONG oil change intervals.

Here’s the Link:

https://www.carscoops.com/2022/08/toyota-master-technician-argues-against-10000-mile-oil-change-intervals-with-busted-engine-teardown/amp/

.

• I would NOT use shorter change intervals for normal daily driven street vehicles. But, I would and do, use shorter change intervals for vehicles that are subjected to severe/extreme usage. And keep in mind, that severe/extreme usage also includes vehicles that are subjected to mostly short trip operation, which is one of the worst things you can do to a motor oil. Naturally forming condensation never has a chance to get quickly and fully burned off, since the engine never gets hot enough for long enough. This will dilute the oil and combine with combustion blow-by products, along with excess fuel from frequent extra rich cold startups. All that contaminates and further dilutes the oil, requiring more frequent oil changes, such as at every 3,000 miles.
.

• In “Hybrid vehicles”, depending on the conditions when the vehicle is underway, the engine is sometimes running, and sometimes not running. And they usually also employ an “engine-off” feature when the vehicle comes to a stop. All this on-again/off-again engine operation creates a severe/extreme usage condition for the engine’s motor oil. That is because the oil cannot maintain a high enough temperature to keep normal condensation removed, which comes from the constant over, and over, and over, partial heating and then re-cooling of the oil. This is a textbook example of short trip operation on the motor oil, which, as mentioned above, is one of the worst things you can subject a motor oil to. As a result, in order to provide a Hybrid vehicle’s engine with the best possible wear protection, its motor oil should be changed much more frequently, such as at every 3,000 miles, because of this severe/extreme usage. So, it is in your best interest to ignore the ridiculously long oil change interval in the Owner’s Manual or the dash’s oil change indicator.
.

• I would NOT use longer change intervals, not even with premium synthetic oils labeled for extended change intervals, or annual change intervals, for all the reasons discussed above.
.

• For “normally driven” vehicles that simply don’t get driven very often, or in other words, vehicles that sit a lot, including “occasional weekend only” Classic Cars, Motor Homes, etc, change the oil every 5,000 miles or one year, whichever comes FIRST.
.

• According to the USA motor vehicle Insurance Industry, the national average for vehicle mileage accumulation is 12,000 miles. Personal vehicles that are driven at continuous, extended, steady-state long distance cruising, totaling WAY MORE than that national average per year, are operating their vehicles under a condition that is much more ideal for an engine, than the start and stop type of driving experienced by normal daily driver vehicles. Operating an engine at continuous, extended, steady-state long distance cruising, allows for a somewhat longer oil change interval.

But, due to a lack of data for that kind of operation, I don’t have a specific oil change interval recommendation for that. Though I would not recommend going more than a couple of thousand extra miles between changes. Because beyond that point, you could well be running into complete additive package depletion, along with all the other reasons for changing the oil.
.

• For Flex-Fuel vehicles using E-Fuels, I recommend changing the oil TWICE as often, than if it was using straight gasoline. See Tech Article #72 for more details.
.

• I recommend following the oil change intervals mentioned ABOVE, for those who want to provide their engines with the BEST POSSIBLE protection based on their usage.

.

NOTE: Few people bother to make sure the gasoline engine oil or the Diesel engine oil they use, has every last certification called for in their vehicle’s Owner’s Manual. And I have never seen, nor heard of that ever being a problem. Because engines are just not that sensitive to the oil being used.

.

FINAL WORDS to be absolutely clear:

Here are the two primary decisions you need to make regarding the motor oil you use in your engine, in their order of importance.

1. The NUMBER ONE most important decision is to select an oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List that provides the level of wear protection that you feel comfortable with for your particular engine. The higher the psi value, the better the wear protection. Racing engines and High Performance street engines that load their oil near its limit, especially traditional American flat tappet pushrod V-8 engines, are best protected with highly ranked oils. Ordinary low performance daily drivers that only lightly load their oil, can get by well enough with low ranked oils, if absolute maximum life out of the engine is not critical.

NOTE: There are synthetic oils on the market that perform very well, while other synthetics do not. There are conventional oils on the market that perform very well, while other conventional oils do not. My Wear Protection Ranking List shows you which oil is which.

2. The NUMBER TWO most important decision is to decide when to change the oil you are using, no matter what that oil may be.

.

************
.
RECOMMENDATION FOR MOTORCYCLES:
.
Most motorcycle engines:
.
• Make far more power per cubic inch, than car engines.
.
• Rev far higher than car engines.
.
• Share the same oil for both the engine and transmission (which subjects the oil to considerably more mechanical shearing).
.
• Have wet clutches that also share the engine oil.

• Often get run much harder than most car engines.
.
So, most motorcycle engines are far harder on their motor oil than normal daily driven automobile engines are, which results in semi-severe usage, to severe usage of their motor oil. Therefore, I recommend the following to provide the best protection:

.

• Do NOT follow the ridiculously long 8,000 mile oil change interval typically found in motorcycle street bike Owner’s Manuals. That outrageously long interval is Marketing driven only to reduce Cost of Ownership numbers. It is NOT what is best for the engine, and was NOT driven by Engineering.
.
• For liquid cooled street motorcycles, use the range: 3,000 mile oil change interval if operated aggressively, up to a 4,000 mile oil change interval if operated modestly.
.
• For air cooled street motorcycles which will often get their oil much hotter than liquid cooled bikes, use the range: 2,000 mile oil change interval if operated aggressively, up to a 3,000 mile oil change interval if operated modestly.
.
• For motorcycles that don’t get ridden very often, or in other words, motorcycles that sit a lot, change the motor oil once a year, even if the oil has fewer miles than shown above.

.

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

MOTOR OIL AGE

Oil Companies in the U.S. don’t post how long their oils are good for. But, history has shown that there is no technical reason for quality motor oil to go bad inside its factory sealed bottle, even after quite a few years. However, I have seen the additive package components settle to the bottom of the bottle. So, if the bottle is not shaken well, before the oil is poured out, then depending on how long it has been sitting, the oil could be lacking much of its critical additive package. And that could compromise the oils performance capability. So, it’s quite important that motor oil bottles are always shaken well before pouring the oil into an engine. That way, you can be sure to get the full capability that the oil was formulated with.

Other than on Quaker State and Pennzoil bottles, I almost never see manufacturing dates on motor oil bottles. And I have never seen an expiration date on a bottle of motor oil in the U.S. So, I typically never know how old motor oil really is.

In my experience, motor oil has always been perfectly fine whenever I have opened a new factory sealed bottle. In fact, I also have never seen a problem when using motor oil from an old partially used bottle that had the cap put tightly back on.

From what I have been able to determine over the years, for motor oil that has been in a tightly sealed bottle, and therefore not exposed to the open atmosphere, age is simply not a critical issue. And I do not have any technical data that would indicate otherwise.

It appears that the clock on motor oil aging, really begins when it is poured out of its bottle, where it is then exposed to the open atmosphere, and to the conditions inside an engine.

So, in addition to recommending that motor oil be changed at reasonable mileage intervals, I also recommend changing the oil if it has been inside an engine for a year or more, even if it has not reached a normal oil change mileage interval. That will prevent any concern there may be about motor oil aging.

.

540 RAT

.
.
===========================
.
.
===========================
.
.
26. Failure Data from a Bushing type Solid Roller Lifter

Let me say right up front, that this write-up is in no way slamming ISKY’ EZ Roll bushing type solid roller lifters. On the contrary, this info will show how well they hold up, considering that ANY solid roller lifter is a maintenance item that will need to be replaced regularly.

Here’s a little background info on solid roller lifters in general. Keeping an eye out for any lash changes, as well as regular removal and inspection is basically the standard recommendation for running solid roller lifters. But, the problem is, that ultimately may not save your engine. Here’s why, the root cause of their failure is metal surface fatigue failure from all the jackhammer pounding they take from not following the carefully designed cam lobe ramps, when they bounce around within the lash slop. They are not forced to ride nicely on the lobes like hydraulic lifters are. And since solid roller lifters don’t always directly ride on a lobe, the opening/closing lobe ramp design goes right out the window, and the roller gets smacked by the lobe, or smacks down on the lobe, depending on if it is rising of falling. The larger the lash, the worse this is. Eventually, this repeated over and over jackhammer pounding takes it toll, and metal surface fatigue failure bites you. You can’t predict it, you can only see it once it begins. And to add insult to injury, you could inspect your lifters one day when they look and feel just fine, and the next day they can suffer metal fatigue failure and things go south.

Bushing type solid roller lifters are way more durable than the needle type, because the needles only make a very tiny line contact (thus extremely high psi loading values are seen), so they are severely overloaded in this application. Plus, in .842 lifters, only the bottom 3 needles take all the load. They are just a failure waiting to happen.

But, the bushing type lifters provide a far larger surface contact (thus they see far lower psi loading values). ISKY says their EZ Roll bushing type solid roller lifters provide a 350% higher load rating than comparable needle type solid roller lifters. However, even the bushing lifters are not immune to failure. The bushing type lifters are subject to roller OD metal fatigue failure, but the needle lifters are subject to “BOTH” needle and roller OD metal fatigue failure.

And this brings us to the subject of this write-up. A car Forum member contacted me about a solid roller lifter that had failed in his engine. He knew I had performed root cause failure analysis on a few sets of failed needle type solid roller lifters, a few years back. So, he sent me his bad bushing type solid roller lifter for failure analysis.

He runs a 467ci Mark IV BBC in his street Hotrod, that see’s a lot of “spirited driving”. The rev limiter is set to 6800 rpm, though the most common normal rpm seen is in the 3000 to 3500 range. his cam specs are 243*/249* duration at .050 tappet lift, 112 LSA, and .668 lift. Lash is .008 cold, .014 hot with aluminum heads. Spring pressures are 210 lbs on the seat, and 525 lbs open. His solid roller lifters are .842 diameter ISKY EZ Roll bushing type.

He doesn’t let it idle. As soon as it fires, he starts driving although not too heavy on the gas until it warms up. He also pre-heats it on chilly mornings with an oil pan heater and a block heater. He also uses an Amsoil pre-luber. And he has been using Valvoline 10W-30 with a can of Moly Slip E added with each oil change, at approximately 1500-2000 miles. Valve lash gets checked a couple of times a summer, as does spring pressure. He put 25,000 miles on these lifters when he had this lifter failure that took out the associated lobe, and the debris from all that also opened up the lifter bore. The whole thing required an engine rebuild. Not fun, to say the least.

Here are the results of my analysis:

The remaining good lifter of the pair, for comparison:

Roller OD looked fine, and OD = .7500

Bushing ID looked fine, and ID = .3200

Axle looked fine, and OD = .3176 to .3179, with average = .31775

Bushing/axle clearance = .0021 to .0024, with average = .00225

***

Failed lifter:

Roller OD was completely destroyed from a text book case of metal surface fatigue failure, which is exhibited by flaking and pitting called spalling. The OD = .5870 to .6178, with average = .6024, so about .150 worth of diameter had flaked and crumbled off, thus destroying the associated lobe in the process.

Bushing ID generally looked alright, but there were signs of debris having worked through the clearance, causing wear and some scratches. The ID = .3223 to .3230, with average = .32265.

Axle looked fine, and OD = .3173 to .3182, with average = .31775

Bushing/axle clearance = .0041 to .0057, with average = .0049
BOTTOM LINE:

He did quite well with these ISKY EZ Roll lifters in terms of how many miles they lasted, even though it ended up causing a rebuild. Solid roller lifters in general, are a fairly poor design, because, as mentioned above, they are subject to the non-stop jackhammer pounding as the lifters bounce around within their lash slop. They get pounded because they cannot faithfully follow the lobe’s opening and closing ramps. Eventually, the pounding takes its toll, and the unavoidable metal surface fatigue failure results.

And for the record, NOTHING you do with oil or oil additives will make any difference here, because oil has absolutely nothing to do with this type of failure. Idling also has NO affect on this failure either. Idling generates the lowest loading and pounding these lifters will ever see, because the valve train acceleration is at its lowest value during idling.

This problem is simply a fact of the Physics involved, and cannot be avoided with this design. So, there is no absolutely safe plan when it comes to running solid roller lifters. They can fail at seemingly any amount of time or mileage. All you can do is replace solid roller lifters with fresh ones at an interval before metal surface fatigue failure results, which may take out your engine as well. What that interval is, is the million dollar question, for which there is no clear absolute answer. Everyone has to make their own judgment call on that. Words to live by – you can never replace solid roller lifters too often…

.

540 RAT
.
.

==========================
.
.
===========================
.

27. Maximum Safe Piston Speed Redline

NOTE: The redline calculation and information given in this Tech Article, is in reference to “short block” or “lower end/bottom end” maximum safe piston speed redline, unless otherwise specified.

Bottom end maximum safe piston speed redline involves the crankshaft, connecting rods and piston/ring assemblies. So, the valve train capability is not involved in this calculation or information.

Valve train capability can vary WIDELY from engine to engine. So, a given valve train may not be capable of revving to as high an rpm as the bottom end. Therefore, a given valve train must be considered separately on an individual basis.

OEM’s typically consider 80 ft/sec as their “max safe ave piston speed redline”. Of course a piston’s speed varies between zero at TDC and BDC, and max when the crankshaft is at 90* to the cylinder centerline. So, the “average piston speed” is simply the “average” of those different speeds, as the name implies.

*****

Here are some stock factory production engines’ specified tachometer redlines for their total overall engine assembly (not just piston speed redlines), and the resulting ave piston speeds at those specified tachometer redlines:

2011 Ford 5.0 Mustang GT “coyote” V-8 tachometer redline = 7,000 rpm = 71 ft/sec ave piston speed

2010 Harley XR-1200, 2 cylinder motorcycle tachometer redline = 7,000 rpm = 74.1 ft/sec ave piston speed

As you can see, both of these factory engines fall below the OEM recommended maximum safe piston speed redline of 80 ft/sec.

Now let’s look at a stock factory production engine that spins sky high, and see what it shows.

2011 Yamaha YZF-R6, 4 cylinder 600cc motorcycle tachometer redline = 16,000 rpm = 74.4 ft/sec ave piston speed

WOW, this one is STILL under the safe 80 ft/sec limit for production engines. How can that be? The stroke length makes “ALL” the difference. Take a look…….

Their stroke lengths:

5.0 Mustang = 3.650 in.

Harley XR-1200 = 3.812 in.

Yamaha 600 = 1.673 in.

*****

But High Performance Hotrod and Racing engines that use good quality aftermarket forged parts, can generally use a more aggressive 90 ft/sec. as their “max safe ave piston speed”.

So, for High Performance Hotrod and Racing engines, you can calculate the max safe piston speed redline, using that 90 ft/sec figure and an engine’s stroke length. For example:

Big Block Chevy (BBC)
For a 540ci BBC with a stroke of 4.25”

At 90 ft/sec ave piston speed, its max safe piston speed redline would be 7,624 rpm

Using the OEM’s 80 ft/sec, you’d get a max safe piston speed redline of 6,776 rpm, which is 848 rpm lower.

Small Block Chevy (SBC)
For a 383ci SBC with a stroke of 3.75”

At 90 ft/sec ave piston speed, its max safe piston speed redline would be 8,640 rpm

Using the OEM’s 80 ft/sec, you’d get a max safe piston speed redline of 7,680 rpm, which is 960 rpm lower

Small Block Ford (SBF)
For the 221, 260 and 289 V-8’s, with their very short 2.87 inch stroke, their max safe piston speed redline looks breathtaking for a traditional old-school American V-8.

Using the OEM’s 80 ft/sec, its max safe piston speed redline would be an eye popping 10,000 rpm.

That is similar to the Yamaha 600cc motorcycle above, which has a super high max safe piston speed redline because of its very short stroke.

*****

Factory-based engines will fall within the normal recommendations. But, if you build a non-factory stroker motor, it would be good to know where your engine stacks up. So, you can use the following equation to check your own engine:

MAX SAFE PISTON SPEED REDLINE = (max safe average piston speed in ft/sec x 360)/ stroke in inches

You can plug OEM’s 80 ft/sec, or High Performance/Racing engine’s 90 ft/sec into the equation, along with your engine’s stroke in inches

.
540 RAT
.
.
=============================
.
.
=============================
.
28.  Eight 0W20 Oils Tested and Compared

The following oils were tested in Spring 2016 for their Wear Protection Capability at the normal test temperature of 230*F, which is representative of normal operating conditions. They were also tested for their onset of Thermal Breakdown points, rounded to the nearest 5* increment. They are ranked here just among themselves, based on their film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance psi values.

The Wear Protection reference categories are:
.

* Over 120,000 psi = FANTASTIC wear protection

* 105,000 to 120,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection

* 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection

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

* 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODERATE wear protection

* 50,000 to 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE LOW wear protection

* Below 50,000 psi = CAUTION – EXTREMELY LOW wear protection

The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.

.

1.  0W20 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN, synthetic (gold bottle) = 124,393 psi
Its onset of Thermal Breakdown = 270*F
.
.
2. 0W20 Toyota Motor Oil, API SN, synthetic = 101,460 psi
Its onset of Thermal Breakdown = 255*F
.
.
3.  0W20 Mobil 1 Extended Performance, API SN, dexos 1 approved, synthetic = 100,229 psi
Its onset of Thermal Breakdown = 265*F
.
.
4.  0W20 Pennzoil Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from Natural Gas, API SN, synthetic
(silver bottle with blue vertical stripe on the label) = 92,504 psi
It’s onset of Thermal Breakdown = 275*F
.
.
5.  0W20 Castrol Edge, Fluid Titanium Technology, API SN, dexos 1 approved, synthetic
(black bottle) = 90,745 psi
It’s onset of Thermal Breakdown = 270*F
.
.
6.  0W20 Valvoline SynPower, API SN, synthetic = 89,556 psi
It’s onset of Thermal Breakdown = 270*F
.
.
7.  0W20 Mobil 1 Advance Fuel Economy, API SN, dexos 1 approved, synthetic = 79,612 psi
It’s onset of Thermal Breakdown = 270*F
.
.
8.  0W20 Kendall GT-1, with liquid Titanium, API SN, synthetic = 71,385 psi
It’s onset of Thermal Breakdown = 260*F
.
.
As you can see, the wear protection capability of these oils varies widely. In fact, the number 1 ranked oil in this group, the 0W20 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, which is in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category, provides a WHOPPING 74% MORE wear protection than the last place 0W20 Kendall GT-1, which is only in the MODEST wear protection category.

Yet, if you look at the bottles, every single one of them boasts about the excellent wear protection they provide, to try and convince you to buy that product. But, obviously some of those claims do NOT stand up when put to the test.

So, if you did not have my test data as proof of their actual capability, and simply looked at the claims on the bottles instead, you would think all of them provide comparable wear protection. But, that is simply NOT the case. Motor Oil Companies are among the worst, for what some would call, blatant false advertising.

Unfortunately, since there is often no truth in advertising, it is in your best interest to never believe anything you read related to motor oil advertising. And that is why I started motor oil testing in the first place. To find out the truth about how various motor oils actually perform. Without my Wear Protection Ranking List, selecting the best oil for your engine, is only a guessing game.

.

540 RAT
.
.
=============================
.
.
=============================

.

.
29. Eliminating BMW M3/M5 Rod Bearing Failures
.
The BMW M3/M5 models have had an ongoing problem with rod bearing failures for a number of years now. The M3’s S65 V-8 engine was derived from the M5’s S85 V-10 engine. They share the same basic architecture and aluminum construction.
.
And I was asked if I could offer a recommendation on how to deal with this problem, by reviewing a comprehensive rod bearing failure thread on the M5Board Forum with many, many failed rod bearing pictures as well as additional supporting data, which also included an M3 link to extensive engine tear down inspection/examination data, as well as additional M3/M5 information and data. This is an enormously long Forum thread (it had reached nearly 70 pages when I was looking at it) that was started in 2013 and was still going in 2016.
.
After going through all that, it turned out that the root cause of all those failures was that BMW had designed/built the engines with insufficient rod bearing clearance (barely large enough for 5W30 motor oil and WAY too tight for super thick oil), insufficient connecting rod side clearance, and they called for insanely thick 10W60 motor oil, which is WAY too thick for acceptable oil flow/lubrication/cooling. It was a perfect storm of doing multiple things completely wrong to actually “cause” rod bearing failures. It was extremely disappointing to see BMW do such a poor job at designing/building those engines. They actually unintentionally designed the engines so that the rod bearings “would” fail. I would have expected far better from them.
.
It was noted that along the way since all this began, that BMW has increased the rod bearing clearance a little, and now also allows the use of thinner oil (though many owners still seem to think they should use super thick oil for protection). But, there was no mention of them increasing the rod side clearance, which needs to be correct in order for oil to properly flow through and out of the rod bearings to provide the critical lubrication and cooling they need to survive.
.
For owners of one of these models, there isn’t a lot most of them can do about the rod side clearance problem, or about the rod bearing clearance issue that their particular model year may have, unless they tear down the engine and have it rebuilt correctly. However, there is one thing owners can easily do to significantly help with this problem.
.
First of all, everyone needs to understand that motor oil “viscosity” is NOT what determines wear protection. That is just an old MYTH, which some people who don’t understand anything about motor, still believe. So, ignore anything you’ve been told about needing thick oil for wear protection, because using thick oil is one of the worst things you can do to your engine.

.
Consider the following:
.
Below is actual motor oil viscosity test data that came out of my Engineering Tests on Motor Oil film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance:

20 wt oils rank between number 2 and 220

30 wt oils rank between number 1 and 233

40 wt oils rank between number 6 and 219

50 wt oils rank between number 39 and 228

60 wt oil, the only one tested, ranked number 101

70 wt oil, the only one tested, ranked number 177

.
So, as you can see, the various oil viscosities all overlap each other regarding their wear protection ranking position, which clearly shows that oil viscosity does NOT play a role in an oil’s wear protection capability. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the primary emphasis on the additive package, which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components. And that has nothing to do with viscosity.
.
Oil “flow” is lubrication, and using thicker oil will simply reduce critical oil flow for no good reason. Plain bearings, such as rod and main bearings, are components that are not designed to be lubricated just by an oil film, they are designed to be lubricated by a flow of liquid oil. Keep in mind that oil pressure is NOT what keeps these parts separated. Oil pressure is a measurement of resistance to flow, and the pressure only serves to supply/move the oil to the clearance between the bearings and the crankshaft journals, and of course to move oil throughout the entire engine. The crankshaft journals and its bearing shells are kept separated by an incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge that is formed as the liquid oil is pulled in between the spinning parts. All liquids are incompressible (that’s how hydraulics work, including brakes with their watery thin brake fluid), so it does NOT matter what the viscosity of any liquid is. Thick oil or thin oil will create the same incompressible liquid oil wedge.
.
As long as sufficient oil is supplied by reasonable oil pressure to maintain that critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge, the crank journals and bearings cannot come in contact with each other, so no wear can occur. And the higher flow rate of thinner oil, supplies more oil volume to the main and rod bearings, which helps ensure that the critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge is always maintained.
.
Thinner oil will of course flow out from the bearing clearance quicker than thicker oil will. But, by making sure the engine provides “sufficient oil pressure”, the oil supply will always be greater than the oil flowing out, which will maintain that all important incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge. As long as an M3/M5 engine generates at least 65 psi of oil pressure at higher rpm with thin oil, it will be in good shape.
.
Oil flow is also what carries heat away from internal engine components. Those engine components are DIRECTLY oil cooled, but only INdirectly water cooled. And better flowing thinner oil will keep critical engine components cooler because it carries heat away faster than slower flowing thicker oil can. This is especially important with plain main and rod bearings, since the flow of oil through the bearings is what cools them. If you run thicker oil than needed, you will needlessly drive up engine component temps.
.
Here are some comparison numbers from an 830 HP road race engine on the track:
.
15W50 oil = 80 psi = 265* oil sump temperature
.
5W20 oil = 65 psi = 240* oil sump temperature
.
Here you can see how the thicker oil flowed more slowly through the bearings, thus getting hotter, driving up bearing temperatures and increasing sump temperatures. And the thinner oil flowed more freely and quickly through the bearings, thus cooling and lubricating them better than thicker oil. And this means the oil coming out from the bearings, and going into the sump, is also cooler. And that is why we see the cooler sump temps with this road race engine example.
.
If an engine is running hot, use a thinner oil to increase flow, increase internal component cooling, and help keep sump temperatures down. Keeping oil temps down is important to help keep oil below the threshold of thermal breakdown.
.
Almost no engine should ever need to run oil thicker than a multi-viscosity 30 weight. The lower the hot viscosity rating, the number after the W, the better the hot flow. For example, hot 5W30 flows WAY better than hot 10W60. Thinner oil will also typically increase HP because of less viscous drag and reduced pumping losses, compared to thicker oils.
.
The churning action of rotating and reciprocating internal engine components, along with oil spraying out from between pressurized components, and overall windage, all contribute in varying degrees, to causing the engine oil to become aerated, which is exhibited by air bubbles/foam in the oil. Air bubble-filled foamy oil, is what typically causes engines running on a dyno to experience oil pressure drops, assuming they have acceptable oil drain-back from the top end, and are keeping the oil pump pickup submerged. Also, air bubble-filled foamy oil, is what typically causes engines being run hard in cars, to experience drops in oil pressure, assuming the oil pump pickup is still submerged in oil. And if that isn’t bad enough, air bubble-filled, foamy oil cannot lubricate critical internal components properly. For proper lubrication of critical components, you need incompressible “liquid” oil, NOT compressible air bubble-filled foamy oil.
.
This is an issue to take very seriously, if you want to provide your engine with the best possible lubrication protection. If this aerated oil issue is bad enough, it can cause wear, damage or outright engine failure. And it can be extremely difficult to diagnose, in the event of an outright engine failure. Because when you take the engine apart for examination, you typically can’t find anything wrong at all, other than say the rod and/or main bearings that failed. That’s because the air bubbles/foam are long gone by then.
.
Heavy thick oil such as 10W60, is of course 60 weight oil at normal operating temperature, is slower to release and eliminate air bubbles/foam, than thinner oil such as 5W30 which is 30 weight oil at normal operating temperature. Motor oils do of course contain anti-foaming agents to help control (though not altogether eliminate) air bubbles/foam. But, the air bubbles that will still be present in the oil anyway, have to travel through the oil to be released. And thicker heavier oils slow down that process, leaving compromised lubrication. However, thinner oil such as 5W30, allows air bubbles to travel through the oil and be released quicker, making it a better viscosity choice to fight motor oil aeration issues, and provide the best possible lubrication protection for your engine.
.
Thinner oil will also drain quicker back to the sump, to help keep the oil level high enough to prevent the oil pump pickup from sucking air during hard braking or cornering, in wet sump systems.
.
CONCLUSION
.
Short of rebuilding those engines correctly with proper clearances, which is what is actually needed, the one thing owners can easily do to significantly help with this rod bearing problem, is to run a much thinner oil than the insanely thick 10W60 that BMW had specified for years. I recommend selecting a highly ranked 5W30 API SN oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, which will make a HUGE improvement in rod bearing oil flow/lubrication/cooling, compared to the more commonly used super thick 10W60. This one significant change may well prevent having to rebuild those engines, and would go a long way toward eliminating rod bearing failures in many M3/M5’s.
.

540 RAT
.
******
.
And below is a related message that I received from one of my BMW Blog readers:
.
Hi Rat,
.
Some time ago I wrote here that I changed the oil viscosity in my BMW S54-6-cylinder-M-engine from the suggested 10W60 to 0W40 using Mobil1 New Life.
.
Now I have covered some 50,0000 kms since then (before it was 5 W 50 for two oil changes, equaling approx. another 15.000 kms). Engine has reached 92,000 and I decided to have the rod bearings replaced.
.
Some owners make frightening experiences on this occasion: Wear patterns far from normal, rubbed-through layers with shiny copper exposed.
.
Guess what?
.
“Nothing to worry about here. Still enough life in the first layer of the bearing for another (!!) 90,000 kms. Wear pattern isn’t very unusual for this engine: Even and over the whole surface of the bearings each of them alike, no spotting visible.”
.
Rooted back to two aspects: Quickest possible build-up of oil flow after cold start due to “0W” and best possible “oil cushion” in the bearing due to high flow with reduced temperature throughout the whole bearing.
.
There were worries about the enormously high pressure in the VANOS-system were that the oil would shear down too quickly and thus failure of the VANOS would be the result. In addition much higher wear on the valve train would be the inevitable result.
.
How wrong can that worry be?
.
No visible wear on camshafts and valve train, VANOS working perfectly and very quiet even after cold start up. Valve clearances have to be adjusted for the first time in more than 90,000 kms.
.
So – lesson learnt from practical experience:
.
Oil flow and protection by a good quality engine oil are much more important than “steady oil pressure” at the highest possible numbers.
.
As for using the suggested super thick 10W60 –  Myth busted! It is not needed.
.
Best wishes
Markus
.
*************
.
Then here is my response back to him:
.
Hi again Markus, it’s good to hear from you.

Thanks for sharing your information. I always appreciate the feedback I continue to receive here and on Internet Car Forums, from many people who have also experienced the excellent results that you have, from using what I’ve been recommending all along – thinner quality motor oil.

You provided such good information, that the next time I update my Blog, I will add your experience at the end of my Tech Article “29. Eliminating BMW M3/M5 Rod Bearing Failures”.

Take care and feel free to get in touch any time,

540 RAT

.
=============================
.
.
=============================
30.  Five Lightweight Diesel Oils Tested and Compared 

Traditionally, heavy duty Diesel oils have been formulated specifically for Diesel engines, and have been intended for large trucks and heavy equipment. They have typically been 15W40 oils with a few 5W40’s available as well. But, all of those are 40 weight oils at normal operating temperature. When I have tested those heavy duty Diesel oils for their wear protection capability, their psi values were almost always rather low, indicating poor wear protection performance. So, their poor wear protection performance, and the fact that they typically reach the onset of thermal breakdown BEFORE most gasoline engine oils do, made it very clear that in general, heavy duty Diesel oils are a poor choice when it comes to providing the desired wear protection for High Performance and Racing gasoline engines. That also shows that anyone who uses heavy duty Diesel oil in High Performance and Racing gasoline engines, simply has no idea what they are doing.

However, those traditional Diesel oils, when used in the engines they are intended for, do not need to provide the excellent wear protection that we like to see in gasoline engine oils. Because, what most people aren’t aware of, is that Diesel engines are designed much more rugged and durable than gas engines. Diesel engines are designed with larger components than gasoline engines. And those larger components spread the load they see, out over larger areas, resulting in lower loading per square inch (psi). Therefore, even though these large truck and heavy equipment Diesel engines are hard working, they do not require oils that provide the high psi protection that we desire in our high performance gas engines. That’s why, what we often consider poor performing Diesel oils, work just fine in heavy equipment.

Diesel and gas engines are on a different scale when it comes to evaluation of their oils regarding wear protection capabilities. You cannot compare them straight across, because they are apples and oranges. Traditional heavy duty Diesel oils should be compared to other traditional heavy duty Diesel oils, unless they are used in gasoline engines. Then they need to meet gasoline engine standards, to provide the wear protection we desire in gasoline engines.

But, now it is becoming more and more common for motor oils to be formulated for BOTH Diesel and gas engines, which results in those oils providing much better wear protection, due to their far better psi values. These oils are generally intended for Diesel cars and light trucks, and they typically come in thinner, lighter viscosities which are desirable in those cars and light trucks.

The following five lightweight 5W30 diesel oils, four of which were formulated for both Diesel and gas engines, with the last one formulated only for Diesel engines, were tested late 2016 for their Wear Protection Capability at the normal test temperature of 230*F, which is representative of normal operating conditions. They were also tested for their onset of Thermal Breakdown points, rounded to the nearest 5* increment. They are ranked here just among themselves, based on their film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance psi values.

The Wear Protection reference categories are:

* Over 120,000 psi = FANTASTIC wear protection

* 105,000 to 120,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection

* 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection

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

* 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODERATE wear protection

* 50,000 to 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE LOW wear protection

* Below 50,000 psi = CAUTION – EXTREMELY LOW wear protection

The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.

.

1. 5W30 Pentosin Pento Super Performance III, for gas and diesel engines, API S”M”, ACEA C3, synthetic, made in Germany = 122,711 psi .
   .
   Its onset of Thermal Breakdown = 275*F .
   .
   However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. But, this oil only had a very small 3.5% drop in capability. And even at that elevated temperature, it produced an extremely impressive 118,477 psi, which still kept this much hotter and thinner oil in the INCREDIBLE Wear Protection Category.
   .
   .
2. 5W30 Mobil 1 ESP Formula (Emission System Protection), for diesel and gas engines, ACEA C2, C3, API SN, synthetic = 113,836 psi .
   .
   Its onset of Thermal Breakdown = 300*F .
   .
   However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. This oil had a significant 22.4% drop in capability. At that elevated temperature, it produced 88,381psi.
   .
   .
3. 5W30 Pennzoil Euro “AV” European Formula, for diesel and gas engines, ACEA C3, API SN, synthetic = 112,664 psi .
   .
   Its onset of Thermal Breakdown = 265*F .
   .
   However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. This oil had a large 29.2% drop in capability. At that elevated temperature, it produced 79,792 psi.
   .
   .
4. 5W30 Castrol Edge Professional “LL03”, Diesel oil, ACEA C3, gold bottle, synthetic = 107,067 psi.
   .
   Its onset of Thermal Breakdown = 275*F .
   .
   However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. This oil had a significant 18.2% drop in capability. At that elevated temperature, it produced 87,593 psi.
   .
   .
5. 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum Euro “L”, made from natural gas, for diesel and gas engines, ACEA C3, GM dexos “2” approved, API SN, synthetic = 97,051 psi .
   .
   Its onset of Thermal Breakdown = 275*F .
   .
   However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. This oil only had an extremely small 0.55% drop in capability. At that elevated temperature, it produced 96,519 psi.
   .

As you can see, the wear protection capability of this group of Diesel oils was quite good. The top four oils were all in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category, and even the last place oil was still in the OUTSTANDING wear protection category. This group of lightweight 5W30 Diesel oils are among the very best Diesel oils I have ever tested.

Three other Diesel oils I tested previously, that also performed very well are:

.

5W30 Mag 1, FMX, European Formula, API S”M”, ACEA C3-08, synthetic, for gas and diesel cars and light trucks = 111,622 psi

.

Its onset of Thermal Breakdown = 280*F.
.
However, I went on to also test this oil at the much higher temperature of 275*F. At that elevated temperature, any hotter and thinner oil is expected to experience a drop in Wear Protection Capability. And this oil did experience a 17.1% drop in capability. At that elevated temperature, it produced 92,508 psi.

.

5W40 Mag 1, FMX, European Formula, API SN, ACEA A3/B4, synthetic, for gas and diesel cars and light trucks = 109,147 psi

.

5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil synthetic, API CI-4 PLUS, CF, SL, ACEA A3/B3, E2, E3, E5, E7 = 102,642 psi

.

For people who feel compelled to run Diesel oil in gasoline engines, the 8 oils shown above are the best oils to consider for that. And if these particular oils were used for that purpose, the users WOULD actually know what they are doing.

.

540 RAT
.
.
==============================
.
.
==============================
.
31. The Truth about Motor Oil Temperature from COLD to HOT and Wear Protection Capability

This Blog is all about sharing Engineering test data FACTS related to motor oil. But, it’s no secret that there is a LOT of BAD information out there about motor oil on Internet Forums. People on those Forums read a few lame Internet articles about motor oil, and suddenly they consider themselves motor oil experts. But of course, these self-proclaimed motor oil experts are not Engineers, they have no Credentials, they do not have extensive in-depth engine experience, nor have they ever done any testing of their own. And they don’t understand that some motor oil Technical information is so highly theoretical, that it isn’t even a factor in the real world.

So, they don’t even know, what they don’t know. Yet that does not stop them from spreading the INCORRECT conclusions they have drawn, or the WRONG assumptions they have made, along with their brainwashed MYTHS, opinions, theories and speculation. They spew that nonsense over and over again. Then people who simply want to learn about motor oil, read that and end up believing garbage, because they don’t know any better.

There is a Motor Oil Forum where people are making incorrect claims about the temperature at which most engine wear takes place. They base that on an Advertising Campaign from a major Oil Company, which claimed that most engine wear takes place during the first 20 minutes of operation, as an engine is warming up. And people on that Forum are so gullible, that they embraced that whole claim, as if an Advertising Campaign, passes for an Engineering fact. That is completely laughable, because they don’t even know that Motor Oil Companies are the worst when it comes to FALSE Advertising. The absolute worst motor oils on the market, and the absolute best motor oils on the market, all make the same claims about how great their motor oils are. Buyer beware.

And because that Advertising Campaign referenced the Sequence IVA Wear Test (ASTM D6891), these people have drawn completely WRONG conclusions and assumptions. They have now taken it upon themselves to claim that the Sequence IVA Wear Test (ASTM D6891), is a warm-up test performed at the temperature where most engine wear takes place. But, as you will see below, they are COMPLETELY WRONG.

The problem is, they apparently have never actually read the Sequence IVA Wear Test (ASTM D6891) spec. Because nowhere in its 48 pages does it mention that it is called a warm-up test. Nowhere in its 48 pages does it say anything about twenty minutes being involved in the test. Nowhere in it 48 pages does it say that it is a test where most engine wear takes place. These people don’t understand that you cannot conclude that the specified test temperature is the temperature at which most engine wear takes place, without also repeating that same test at both lower and higher temps, for data comparison to determine that.

The Official Spec for Sequence IVA Wear Test (ASTM D6891), says it is an extended idle speed, camshaft lobe wear test for spark-ignition engines equipped with an overhead valve-train and sliding cam followers, for the particular oil being tested. The Steady-State Test Spec calls for the Stage I test to be for 50 minutes at 800 rpm, at 120*F oil temp, and the Stage II Test to be for 10 minutes at 1500 rpm, at 138*F oil temp, making one cycle. The procedure conducts the testing for a total of 100 cycles (100 hours), with no scheduled shutdowns. That’s the basic test in a nutshell. Yet somehow, those people twisted it into their false propaganda. They don’t even know that Engineering does NOT work that way. They simply have no idea what they are doing or saying.

*****

A QUICK SIDE NOTE:

Sequence IVA Wear Test (ASTM D6891), is referenced as the spec used to determine if a motor oil’s wear protection capability, is sufficient to meet the “wear protection portion” of the requirements to be awarded an API SN certification. At the time of this writing, the lowest performing oil on my Wear Protection Ranking List, that had an API SN certification, only produced 66,099 psi, and was ranked a pathetic 186th out of 214 oils tested at that point. That means 185 OTHER oils on my Wear Protection Ranking List provided BETTER wear protection than that API SN certified motor oil. So, the Industry Wear Protection Requirement to earn an API SN certification is NOT very strict at all.

*****

Now back to the primary purpose of this article. To see where that estimated 20 minutes idea comes from, see my Tech Article, “23. Multi-viscosity motor oils are not exactly what some people think”, for more details. But, for a quick preview, here is a paragraph from the CONCLUSION of that article:

“The best way to protect your engine, when dealing with thick, poor flowing, cold oil, is simple. If you run an engine too hard when it’s stone-cold, you can cause unnecessary wear or even damage (again see my Tech Article, “23. Multi-viscosity motor oils are not exactly what some people think”, for an example of major damage that can result), due to the reduced oil flow rate/lubrication. But, all you have to do to avoid that problem, and to protect your engine, is to run it easy (small throttle openings and low rpm) for the 10 or 15 minutes it takes for it to reach normal operating temperature. All you need is a little patience, and then you can run it hard without any concern about lubrication.”

So, the approximate 10 to 20 minute warm-up period has to do with the poor oil flow rate of motor oil when it is cold and thick, which greatly reduces lubrication. During that period, the oil is not flowing at a rate the engine was designed for at its normal operational temperature. Therefore, real world engine warm-up is NOT about an oil’s wear protection capability at some “specific” cold temperature. It’s all about that reduced cold oil flow.

Assuming that an engine is allowed to warm-up fully before being run hard, as mentioned above, then it is a FACT that most engine wear takes place during cold start-up before oil flow reaches all the critical internal components, in engines that have been sitting for a length of time. The amount of time sitting is what determines how critical cold start-up wear is.

On the safe end of the extreme, is a daily driver operating in mild weather, which will typically experience little to no wear during cold start-up, because of sufficient residual oil on components and in oil passages, from being run every day.

But, on the worrisome end of the extreme, is an engine that has been sitting for an extended period of time, which allows maximum oil drain off from components, maximum oil drainage/seepage out of oil passages, and general drying up of protective motor oil. In the case of an engine that has been sitting for an extended period of time, with very little protective oil still in place, you are looking at a condition that is closer to a dry start than anyone would desire. In this case, it could take perhaps as long as five seconds or even more, for oil to reach all the critical components. If that engine’s fast idle speed is say 1,250 rpm, then that would mean that the last components to receive oil five seconds later, would have rotated about 104 revolutions for those turning at crank speed, or 52 revolutions for those turning at cam speed, before oil flow gets there. And the engine is depending entirely on whatever bit of oil film may still be present. That is a LOT of spinning when the engine is nearly dry to begin with.

So, it’s not hard to see how this can result in engine wear or perhaps even damage. In a case like this, it would be in the engine’s best interest to use a highly ranked motor oil with excellent film strength capability, from my Wear Protection Ranking List, with a low cold viscosity rating, such as 0WXX or 5WXX, to protect nearly dry critical components as much as possible, and to ensure the quickest possible oil flow to those critical engine components. And priming the engine with oil before firing it up, would add even more protection against start-up wear. This is NOT Rocket Science, but the people on that Motor Oil Forum, can’t understand any of it.

*****

So, all this brings us to the Engineering test I performed on motor oil for this Article, which is to show the FACTS once and for all, as to how temperature affects a motor oil’s wear protection capability. I tested the current synthetic 5W30 Amsoil Signature Series motor oil again in late Fall 2017, at a different temperature than the two temperatures I tested it at a few weeks prior. That will allow us to can compare all three test temperatures, to see how wide temperature differences affect a motor oil’s wear protection capability. That new test temperature is:

• 130*F which is an oil temperature in the middle of the range of the Sequence IVA Wear Test (ASTM D6891)

• I previously tested that oil at 230*F, which is representative of normal operating oil temperature, where engines spend 99% of their life, which I use in my normal Engineering Testing on Wear Protection Capability.

• I also previously tested that oil at 275*F, which is a much higher oil temperature that I sometimes test certain oils at.

The Wear Protection reference categories in my Engineering tests are:

* Over 120,000 psi = FANTASTIC wear protection

* 105,000 to 120,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection

* 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection

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

* 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODERATE wear protection

* 50,000 to 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE LOW wear protection

* Below 50,000 psi = CAUTION – EXTREMELY LOW wear protection

The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.

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

The Science of Physics and Chemistry that determines the resulting data from these tests, will PROVE how temperature affects motor oil wear protection capability. Here are the test results to use for comparing all three test temperatures:

• The new test temperature was 130*F, which is an oil temperature in the middle of the range of the Sequence IVA Wear Test (ASTM D6891) = 123,882 psi, which is about an 8% drop from the normal 230*F test temperature’s psi value. At the time of this writing, at this temperature, the oil provides such excellent wear protection, that this psi value would rank 7th out of 209 oils tested at that point. An engine warming up, will transition right past this temperature as it heats up to its normal operating temperature.

• The previously tested normal operating temperature of 230*F = 134,352 psi

• The previously tested extra high temperature of 275*F = 124,573 psi, which is about a 7% drop from the normal 230*F test temperature’s psi value.

As you can clearly see, all three test temperatures are in the FANTASTIC wear protection category. There was no meaningful difference in wear protection capability across the three test temperatures, showing that oil temperature is NOT a primary indicator of a motor oil’s wear protection capability.

So, with such impressive wear protection capability at all three temperatures ranging from 130*F to 275*F, no one in their right mind, could possibly say that any of these temperatures represent a temperature where the most engine wear takes place, just because of how temperature affects an oil’s ability to provide wear protection.

These empirical Engineering test results PROVE that the Sequence IVA Wear Test (ASTM D6891) test is NOT a test of the oil temperature where most engine wear takes place.

These empirical Engineering test results PROVE that most engine wear does NOT take place as an engine warms up with oil flowing and lubricating throughout an engine.

These empirical Engineering test results PROVE that my statements above are correct, that most engine wear takes place under one or both of the following conditions:

• During cold start-up before the oil reaches critical components, in engines that have been sitting for an extended period of time.

• And/or if an engine is run too hard during warm-up, while the oil is still too cold and too thick to flow sufficiently, and therefore is not capable of flowing properly to lubricate critical components. And that this condition is strictly an oil flow issue, and NOT related to an oil’s wear protection capability based on its temperature.

These empirical Engineering test results PROVE that the unqualified people on that Motor Oil Forum are completely clueless, regarding the facts about motor oil.

As always, this Blog is “THE” place to go for those wanting to know the FACTS about motor oil.

.
540 RAT
.
.
==============================
.
.
32.  V-8 Head/Intake Alignment Procedure

The machining tolerances, even on top of the line brand name parts, quality control, and tolerance build-up overall, of the whole assembled engine, can result in less than ideal cylinder head and intake manifold alignment on traditional American V-8 engines. That means that the intake manifold gaskets can end up not having uniform clamp-up. And all that can cause oil leaks, or coolant leaks, or air leaks which cause a leaner than intended air/fuel ratio on carbureted engines, as well as possible squeezed out and broken intake gaskets.

I’ve checked this out by using a razor blade to cut notches out of the intake gaskets, in between the intake bolts, so that I could measure the gap clearance between the intake and the heads. I’ve found that the gap from one end of the intake to the other end, is not always the same, which means the intake gasket will not be clamped-up equally at all the bolts, no matter how tight they are.

So, I developed a procedure that works very well to establish proper intake gasket clamp up along the whole length of the intake manifold. But, the heads need to be slightly loose in order to do this procedure:

Put the heads on the block for final installation, but only FINGER TIGHTEN the head bolts for now. Then temporarily install intake manifold with its intended gaskets, but no sealer, and no end gaskets/sealer. (You will be using the intake only to position the heads here, the manifold can be installed permanently later on).

Position the intake manifold centered over the bolt holes as you normally would. Install all intake bolts, but only tighten them MEDIUM SNUG, do not fully tighten them. The heads have now been pulled up tight against the intake manifold and its gaskets for proper even gasket clamp-up (the heads will have some “float” even with dowel pins in place, so they can move around a little, we are not talking spacecraft precision here).

Now torque the head bolts in the normal sequence, while the snug intake bolts hold heads in the proper position inboard/outboard. When done torquing the heads, remove the intake and install it permanently whenever you like. Now you have the heads in perfect alignment with YOUR intake and its specific machining, for the best gasket clamp-up you’ll ever get on your particular combo.

.
540 RAT
.
.
==============================
.

.
33. CAN WET CLUTCH MOTORCYCLES USE “FAR SUPERIOR” AUTOMOTIVE MOTOR OILS?

The controversy about whether or not wet clutch motorcycles really require a special motorcycle oil, is a commonly debated topic on Internet Motorcycle Forums. And questions about all that have come up in this Blog’s Q&A Section a number of times over the past year or so. It has to do with claims that wet clutch motorcycles can experience clutch slippage if 5W30 Automotive “Resource Conserving” motor oils are used. But, the problem with that claim is that many motorcyclists use a variety of 5W30 Automotive “Resource Conserving” motor oils in their motorcycles with no problem at all.

I have an extensive background with motorcycles. Before College, I spent the early part of my technical career first inside the Japanese Motorcycle Industry at the Dealer level in the Service Department, then later, inside at the Corporate level, in the Motorcycle Service Division. Because of that experience inside the Industry, I do NOT trust the Japanese Motorcycle Industry nor the Japanese Automotive Standards Organization (or JASO for short), to do the right thing. One of the reasons I don’t trust them, is because they made a huge, completely unnecessary change many years ago, that created the reason we are even talking about all this in the first place.

Motorcycle clutches used to be properly Engineered with the correct amount of spring pressure for excellent performance and trouble free operation. But, later the Japanese Motorcycle Industry decided that they wanted the clutch lever pull to be lighter, to make their bikes seem “nicer”, in order to appeal to a broader audience to increase sales and profits. So, they violated proper Engineering design in order to follow that Marketing goal. In doing so, they reduced clutch spring pressure so much, that the clutch lever pull became light enough for an 85 year old Great Grandmother with arthritis to operate it. Now, all this discussion about what oil is required, is nothing more than a “work around plan” to deal with that Marketing driven mistake.

If motorcycle clutches had continued with sufficient spring pressure, as proper Engineering calls for, there would be no talk about a supposed need for so-called motorcycle oil. But, the Japanese Motorcycle Industry and JASO came up with the idea of “motorcycle oil” to address the newer poor clutch design they created just for Marketing reasons. How convenient for them. Now they can increase their profits by selling their own motorcycle oil, to try and cover up what they did, rather than lose face and go back to proper clutch design. They obviously believe that two wrongs, make a right. Nothing is ever what it appeared to be at first glance. And once people know what actually went on in the background, they really have their eyes opened.

And adding to all this, is the fact that JASO does not post any specific test data showing the actual “difference” between so-called Motorcycle oils that they want you to buy, and Automotive oils that they don’t want you to buy. All they post is a list of oils that supposedly meet their requirements. There is no transparency at all, for people to actually know what is truly going on. All that secrecy regarding hiding their test data, makes many people think that the whole motorcycle oil requirement is nothing but a scam, especially since no problem shows up in the real world in most cases. As a comparison, I post “ALL” the data that comes out of my Engineering testing, for the whole world to see.

So, what is a motorcycle owner to do? Investigation reveals that reports of motorcycle clutch slippage with 5W30 Resource Conserving Automotive motor oil, comes from high mileage motorcycles, that have old worn clutches, which are glazed, hardened, and have lost their normal gripping capability. “High mileage” is the common thread between all clutch slippage complaints, but the particular oil being used is not. You don’t come across reports of slippage with wet clutches that are new or are in good condition.

Here are just a few examples of Owners using far superior 5W30 Resource Conserving Automotive motor oil in wet clutch motorcycles, with no problems at all:

A Mechanical Engineer Colleague of mine has a wet clutch 2006 Suzuki GSXR 1000cc Sport Bike with around 7,000 miles on it, at the time of this writing. He is running 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability (often abbreviated as QSUD) synthetic, Resource Conserving Automotive motor oil in it. And he has NOT had any problems at all with the clutch or shifting. At this time, that oil ranks 4th in my Engineering Motor Oil Torture Test, Wear Protection Ranking List, out of 229 motor oils tested so far.

And as a matter of fact, he was so happy with that 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability synthetic, Resource Conserving Automotive motor oil in his Suzuki wet clutch motorcycle, that when he got a new 2018 Yamaha XSR900 Triple wet clutch motorcycle, he used that oil in it as well. So far, his Yamaha has fairly low mileage on it, but he has NOT had any problems at all with the clutch or shifting. He highly recommends using that or similar 5W30 Resource Conserving Automotive motor oil in wet clutch motorcycles.

And one of my Blog readers: Jim J. said, “I have been following your blog for several years now. I am using 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability (QSUD) in my three vintage BMW K bikes (’94 K75RT, ’88 K100RS 2valve, and ’91 K100RS 4valve) with excellent results”.

Simply put, it is NOT true to say that wet clutch motorcycles cannot use 5W30 Resource Conserving Automotive oil. The fact is:

Virtually any wet clutch motorcycle will work just fine with most any automotive oil, including 5W30 Resource Conserving oil, as long as the clutch is in good condition.

However, those who wrench on their own motorcycles, can easily improve their clutches for even better performance, to the way they should be when properly Engineered. For motorcycle clutches that use coil springs, those springs can be changed to stiffer springs, if any are available. Or the stock springs can be shimmed at their base, with proper sized washers, if there is enough clearance to still avoid clutch spring coil bind, when the clutch lever is pulled all the way in.

You can easily check that by doing a test assembly of the clutch, with the shimming washers in place. Then pull the clutch lever to see if the lever pulls all the way to the handlebar with no binding. If there is no binding due to clutch spring coil bind, you are good to go, and will have a much better clutch. I did this a number of times, when I used to own motorcycles. And the small increase in clutch lever pull effort was never an issue for me. In fact, I actually liked it better than the weak limp feel of the factory setup.

A NOTE ON THE POTENTIAL FOR HAND FATIGUE WITH STIFFER CLUTCH SPRINGS:
Depending on just how stiff, the stiffer clutch springs might be, that people upgrade to, it may be possible to experience hand fatigue, if the bike is ridden in traffic with a lot of stop lights. However, even many stop lights in your ride, do not have to cause hand fatigue in most cases, if you are smart about the way you operate the clutch. I have observed countless times, that motorcycle riders, especially younger riders who are not technically savvy, will sit at a 2 minute stop light, HOLDING THE CLUTCH IN, the entire time. WOW!!! That is just asking for hand fatigue. You should NEVER do that in the first place. So, if you stop that ill-advised behavior, it could eliminate hand fatigue that those riders may experience.

The reasons you should NEVER do that include:

• It causes hand fatigue

• It puts totally unnecessary and excessive side-loading on the clutch disengagement bearing, and other bearings on that shaft

• It adds heat to the oil as the clutch plates slide over each other

• And though not a technical issue, it makes you look like a total beginner who doesn’t even know what you are doing, which in this case would be true

Consider this: If you click the transmission into neutral as you come up to a stoplight, it takes only 1 second’s worth of a clutch lever pull. That compares to 120 seconds worth of a clutch pull if you sit there and hold the clutch in for a full 2 minute stop light. If you encounter say 10 stop lights on the way to your destination, and 10 stop lights on the way back, for a total of 20 stop lights in a single day. That equals 2,400 seconds of holding the clutch in per day, vs 20 seconds if you simply put the transmission in neutral each time and let the clutch back out while you sit there.

In a 5 day work week, that equals 12,000 seconds, or 200 minutes, or 3.3 hours PER WORK WEEK that you sat there holding the clutch in. PER MONTH, that equals more than 13 HOURS of holding the clutch in!!! You can see how crazy that is. So, you do NOT have to be a Medical Doctor or have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering, to see that holding the clutch in when it is not needed, is a TERRIBLE IDEA. So, if you are guilty of doing that, do your hand and your bearings a favor, and STOP DOING IT. And of course it only takes another 1 second’s worth of a clutch pull, to stab the transmission back into gear, to get rolling again.

The same thing applies to holding the clutch pedal down on cars and trucks at a stop light. You are putting unnecessary wear and tear on the clutch’s throw out bearing and on the crankshaft’s thrust bearing. If you are guilty of doing that, you should do yourself a favor, and STOP doing that as well.

*****

A QUICK AND EASY WAY TO IMPROVE PUTTING A MOTORCYCLE INTO NEUTRAL, AND TO GENERALLY IMPROVE SHIFTING OVERALL:
On a related note, it is fairly common for wet clutch motorcycle riders to experience some difficulty in shifting from 1st or 2nd gear into neutral. That is typically caused by a slight amount of clutch drag, even when the clutch lever is pulled all the way in, which adversely effects the “feel” of putting the bike into N. The reason is because that slight clutch drag keeps the gears loaded, which makes it more difficult to put it into N. It has been like that forever. And I have not seen the particular oil being used, make much difference in that.

But, I have a simple and easy way for you to improve the clutch action/shifting. All it takes is to “carefully” bend the clutch lever “end” further outward away from the handlebar. The distance between the clutch lever to handlebar contact point, and the handlebar itself, when the lever is released to its resting position, should be INCREASED by about 10 mm or 3/8″ more than it was originally. The extra clutch lever movement provides some additional clutch disengagement. That will take the load off the gears, so that finding neutral will be much easier, and it also allows for easier shifting in general. I did this on the motorcycles I used to have. And that minor modification always took care of the issue for me. So, other motorcycle riders might want to consider doing the same thing on their own bikes.

The way to do this clutch lever bending modification without damaging or breaking the lever, is to wrap the lever in a two or three of layers of rags. Then use a large box end wrench for leverage to carefully, controllably, slowly, and repeatedly bend the lever forward a little at a time. For that bending operation, position the box end of the wrench over/around the lever, at several places along the lever, for a little bending at each location, between about a third of the way out from the pivot, to about two thirds of the way out from the pivot. You don’t want to try and bend it too close to the pivot, or too close the tip. I have done this modification many times with no problem at all.

An alternative to this clutch lever modification, as it relates to improving putting a motorcycle into neutral, would be to simply slip the motorcycle into neutral just BEFORE it comes to complete stop.

*****

Even if people don’t want to deal with changing or shimming clutch springs, they can still run a quality high performance 5W30 Resource Conserving Automotive motor oil that provides FAR BETTER engine and transmission wear protection than all but one Motorcycle oil I have tested. And high performance automotive oils will also typically provide more HP and better MPG, compared to low performing motorcycle oils.

When motorcycle clutch discs do eventually become old, worn, glazed, hardened, and have lost their normal gripping capability, they can be more prone to slippage with 5W30 Resource Conserving Automotive motor oils than with poor performing motorcycle oils. But, by then the clutch discs are due for replacement anyway. And it is far better to replace the clutch then, rather than compromise their bike’s engine and transmission wear protection for years, from using poor performing motorcycle oils.

Under anything near normal bike riding conditions, any eventual old worn clutch slippage issue will be a gradual thing over time. It will not just suddenly slip completely and leave you stranded. And if push comes to shove, you can always change back to poor performing motorcycle oil, to stretch out the use of an old worn clutch, for a little longer.

Just below is a comparison between the top High Performance Automotive 5W30oils and the motorcycle oils I have tested (the higher the psi, the better the wear protection). Keep in mind, that my Engineering Motor Oil Torture Test determines every oil’s “film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance value”, which all mean the same thing and exactly apply to motorcycle conditions with the transmission gears sharing the same oil with the engine, and are represented by the psi value posted in my Wear Protection Ranking List.

Therefore, my testing DOES take into account a motor oil’s capability to withstand with the higher levels of mechanical shearing found in most motorcycle engines. Oils marketed as “Motorcycle Oils” sometimes make claims about their better ability to deal with the higher levels of mechanical shearing found in most motorcycle engines. But, my Engineering Testing shows that those motorcycle oils are only making false advertising claims that do NOT stand up when actually put to the test.

* 5W30 Amsoil Signature Series synthetic “automotive oil” = 134,352 psi, ranked 3rd out of 229 motor oils tested so far.

* 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Duty synthetic “automotive oil” = 133,125 psi, ranked 4th out of 229 motor oils tested so far.

* 5W30 Motul 300V motorcycle oil = 112,464 psi, ranked 25th

* 10W40 Mobil 1 Racing 4T motorcycle oil = 93,661 psi, ranked 90th

* 20W50 Mobil 1 V-Twin motorcycle oil = 75,855 psi, ranked 163rd

* 10W30 ProHonda HP4S motorcycle oil = 66,852 psi, ranked 205th

* 10W40 Valvoline 4 Stroke motorcycle oil = 65,553 psi, ranked 210th

* 10W40 Spectro Motor-Guard High Performance Motorcycle Oil = 57,977 psi, ranked 224th

As you can see, the best High Performance Automotive oils provide FAR BETTER engine and transmission wear protection than most “motorcycle oils”. And as mentioned above, automotive motor oils also typically provide more HP and better MPG, compared to the lower performing motorcycle oils.
Most motorcycle engines:

* Make far more power per cubic inch, than car engines.

* Rev far higher than car engines.

* Typically get run much harder than most car engines.

*Share the same oil for both the engine and the transmission, which subjects the oil to considerably higher levels of mechanical shearing.

Therefore, I recommend using High Performance Automotive oils in motorcycles, wet clutch or not.

So, at the end of the day, motorcycle owners have to ask themselves if they really want to run a poor performing motorcycle oil in their beloved bike, or if they would be better off using a FAR SUPERIOR High Performance Automotive motor oil? The choice is theirs.
.
UPDATE:
The only possible concern about the amazing new in 2021, number 1 Ranked Automotive motor oil, 5W30 Quaker State “Full Synthetic” (QSFS), dexos 1 Gen 2, ILSAC GF-6A, API SP = 152,674 psi, was that it might be “too good” for use in wet clutch motorcycles. But, motorcycle Owner feedback in July 2021, proved that this amazing new motor oil works just fine in wet clutch motorcycles, meaning there was no clutch slipping at all. Of course that applies to wet clutch motorcycles with clutches that are in good condition.
.
540 RAT
.

.
===============================
.
.
34. How well do Traditional Heavy Duty Diesel oils perform, when they have the latest CK-4 certification?

Some of my Heavy Duty Diesel Blog readers have asked about the latest Diesel oils that now have the new CK-4 certification. So, here in one place, is a comparison of how the CK-4 Diesel oils have performed in my testing.

* Over 120,000 psi = FANTASTIC wear protection

* 105,000 to 120,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection

* 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection

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

* 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODERATE wear protection

* 50,000 to 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE LOW wear protection

* Below 50,000 psi = CAUTION – EXTREMELY LOW wear protection

The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.

NOTE: Traditional Heavy Duty Diesel oils typically do not perform anywhere near as well as the best gasoline engine oils do.

.
At the time of this writing, traditional Heavy Duty Diesel oils formulated for big trucks and heavy equipment, rank overall between number 43 and 193. But, if you omit the two highest ranked Heavy Duty Diesel oils which are SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CAPABLE than most of the other Heavy Duty Diesel oils, the rest only rank between 95 and 193. Other than those two particular highest ranked Heavy Duty Diesel oils, the poor wear protection performance of most Heavy Duty Diesel oils, makes it very clear that in general, they are a poor choice for use in High Performance gas engines. Heavy Duty Diesel oils should be used only in Heavy Duty Diesel engines, where they are intended to be used. Heavy Duty Diesel engines are designed MUCH differently than gasoline engines, so both types of oils are formulated for different requirements.

Here are the CK-4 Diesel oils I have tested:

• 10W30 LE (Lubrication Engineers) Monolec Ultra Diesel oil, API CK-4, CJ-4, CI-4, CH-4, CI-4Plus, conventional = 97,878 psi
This oil was tested Spring 2018. It is the best performing CK-4 Diesel oil I have tested to date. And it is the second best performing Diesel oil I have ever tested.

• 0W40 Amsoil Max-Duty Signature Series Diesel oil, API CK-4/SN, CJ-4, CI-4+, CF, ACEA E9, E7, synthetic = 90,307 psi
This oil was tested late 2017.

• 15W40 Amsoil Max-Duty Signature Series Diesel Oil, API CK-4/SN, CJ-4, CI-4+, CF, ACEA E9, E7 synthetic = 87,881 psi
It claims 6X more wear protection than required by Detroit Diesel DD13 Scuffing Test.
This oil was tested early 2018.

• 5W40 Amsoil Max-Duty Signature Series Diesel Oil, API CK-4/SN, CJ-4, CI-4+, CF, ACEA E9, E7 synthetic = 87,154 psi
It claims 6X more wear protection than required by Detroit Diesel DD13 Scuffing Test.
This oil was tested early 2018.

Comparing the three Amsoil Max-Duty Signature Series Diesel Oils above, that were tested late 2017/early 2018:
0W40 = 90,307 psi
5W40 = 87,154 psi
15W40 = 87,881 psi

The psi values of these three oils are all within a range of about 3.5%, which is very consistent for oils in the same product line. Therefore, any of these three oils would provide essentially the same level of wear protection. But, the 0W40 will flow the best when cold, making it the top choice of those three Amsoils.

These four CK-4 Heavy Duty Diesel oils rank above all the other Diesel oils I have tested, except for the absolute top ranked Diesel oil which is:
• 5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil synthetic, API CI-4 PLUS, CF, SL, ACEA A3/B3, E2, E3, E5, E7 = 102,642 psi.
But, this oil is formulated for Diesel engines not equipped with Diesel particulate filters (DPF).

If you need a CK-4 Diesel oil, you don’t need to look any further than the four CK-4 Diesel oils above, which will provide excellent wear protection for Heavy Duty Diesel engines.
.
540 RAT
.
===================
.
.
35. PISTON TO CYLINDER CLEARANCE IS “NOT” WHAT MANY PEOPLE THINK IT IS

I have had a few people contact me here on my Blog with questions involving piston to cylinder clearance. And I’ve also seen a number of people on Automotive Forums who are completely confused and off-track about piston to cylinder clearance. They think the piston to cylinder clearance they see on a Spec Sheet, is “THE” clearance that an engine runs with, which is completely WRONG. So, I thought it was time to write-up a Tech Article addressing that, to help clear up the confusion that many people seem to have.

The piston to cylinder clearance specified by a piston manufacturer, or listed on an Engine Builder’s Spec sheet, is NOT the piston to cylinder “operational RUNNING clearance” that an engine actually experiences when it is at its normal operating temperature. The piston to cylinder clearance you see written, or hear discussed, is the “cold room temperature ASSEMBLY clearance”. The required “cold room temperature ASSEMBLY clearance” for any particular engine build, is determined by the specific piston material being used, the bore size, the type of build the engine is, and the type of use the engine will see. And there are a number of different variations for each of those considerations, such as naturally aspirated, Supercharged, Turbocharged, Nitrous, gasoline, alcohol, Nitro, as well as grocery getter, daily driver, towing, street performance, street/strip, Marine, dedicated drag race, road race, circle track, etc, etc. As you can see, it can get rather complicated. It is definitely NOT one size fits all. Plus, Engine Builders will have their own individual preferences, since no one thinks the same as the next guy.

If engines are built with the proper “cold room temperature ASSEMBLY clearance”, after taking everything into consideration, then no matter what their variations may be, they were originally developed to end up with an approximately similar “operational RUNNING clearance”. You want the “operational RUNNING clearance” in any engine, to be “small enough” to stabilize the piston, yet “large enough” not to seize/scuff the piston/cylinder bore, and to allow for proper lubrication of the piston skirt and cylinder. In general, after all the parts involved, have thermally expanded to the size they will be, due to the heat they are subjected to, under their normal operational conditions, they were originally developed to end up with an “operational RUNNING clearance” of around .0015 to .002 of an inch. Smaller clearance for smaller bores, and larger clearance for larger bores. You wouldn’t want to press your luck by going much tighter, and you don’t need it much looser, since the thermal expansion of all the parts involved, has already been accounted for. So, if an engine was built PROPERLY, you will NOT have piston noise, once the engine has fully warmed up to its normal operational temperature, even if it had rather loose piston to cylinder clearance to begin with.

Of course you cannot measure that ideal “operational RUNNING clearance” inside a running engine. So, you need follow piston manufacturer clearance recommendations. Because they determined that “operational RUNNING clearance” indirectly, when they were originally developing their pistons. They have already done the work for you. They know how tight you can go with different piston materials, used in different applications. They determined that from “testing” their pistons in running engines. Basically, they found out how tight they can go when seizing/scuffing of the pistons/cylinders takes place. Then they added a little more “cold room temperature ASSEMBLY clearance”, and tested again, to arrive at what they ultimately need for a safe “operational RUNNING clearance”. Since different piston materials are now well established, and different operational conditions are well understood, piston to cylinder clearance “reference charts” have been created by the piston manufacturers. So now, all you have to do, is follow their recommended piston to cylinder clearance, and you will be good to go.

You will see on piston manufacturer “reference charts”, that in order to end up with that ideal “operational RUNNING clearance”, wildly different “cold room temperature ASSEMBLY clearances” will be required, depending on the particular application. The type of engine, the type of usage the engine will experience, and the specific piston material being used, are all critical. The type of engine, and the type of usage, determines the amount of heat the pistons will see, which determines how much they will thermally expand as they heat up. The more power made, the more heat generated. More heat equals more thermal expansion. So of course, less heat equals less thermal expansion. But, the effect on piston expansion does not end there. The specific piston material involved, will determine just “how much” that particular piston will thermally expand, from the amount of heat it sees. Pistons are all aluminum, but they DO NOT all thermally expand the same amount when subjected to the same amount of heat. The amount of thermal expansion each type of piston material will experience, is determined by the amount of silicon it contains, and by the physical differences between castings and forgings.

The higher the silicon content a piston has, the less it will thermally expand as it heats up, the harder the material is, the better its wear resistance, and the more brittle it is.

The lower the silicon content a piston has, the more it will thermally expand as it heats up, the softer the material is, the worse its wear resistance, and the more malleable it is.

And forgings expand more than castings.

Here are the approximate percentages of silicon in each type of piston material:

• Ordinary inexpensive cast aluminum pistons contain approximately 10% silicon.

• Hypereutectic cast aluminum pistons contain approximately 16% silicon, so they thermally expand the LEAST of all pistons.

• 4032 forged aluminum racing pistons contain approximately 11% silicon.

• 2618 forged aluminum racing pistons contain approximately 0.2% silicon, so they thermally expand the MOST of all pistons.

The primary intended usage of each type of piston is:

• Ordinary inexpensive cast aluminum pistons, are for ordinary stock vehicles with low to moderate performance engines.

• Hypereutectic cast aluminum pistons, are stronger than ordinary inexpensive cast pistons, and are for stock street performance, and moderately modified engines. These pistons can typically go well beyond 100,000 miles when used in normally driven vehicles. But, they are not as strong as, and are more brittle than, forged racing pistons.

• 4032 forged aluminum racing pistons, are for High Performance modified Street/Strip and Racing engines.

• 2618 forged aluminum racing pistons, are for the utmost in toughness, durability, strength, and fatigue life, in all out brutal High Horsepower Racing engines, including Supercharged, Turbocharged, and Nitrous applications. These pistons can withstand a lot of damage without breaking, making them the most bullet-proof pistons available.

Now,  let’s take a look at some typical “cold room temperature ASSEMBLY clearances” that can be found on piston clearance reference charts from the piston manufacturers (unfortunately, various reference charts often don’t provide the same recommended clearances for the same piston material), for the various piston material types, to see how those clearances compare for a particular engine application.

For this example, we’ll look at pistons that would be used in a modified, naturally aspirated, Street/Strip Hotrod, with a traditional gasoline powered, cast iron block, 454 cubic inch Big Block Chevy V-8 engine, that has a 4.250 inch diameter bore. Here are those recommended clearances:

• Ordinary inexpensive cast aluminum pistons = .0045″

• Hypereutectic cast aluminum pistons = .002″

• 4032 forged aluminum racing pistons = .005″

• 2618 forged aluminum racing pistons = .006″

Keep in mind that these “cold room temperature ASSEMBLY clearances”, for all these various piston material types, were originally developed to end up with an approximately similar “operational RUNNING clearance” of around .0015 to .002 of an inch. So, as you can see, “overall” the different piston materials will thermally expand quite differently in the same engine application, to take up much of that “cold room temperature ASSEMBLY clearance”. And as mentioned above, if you follow the piston manufacturers’ recommended piston to cylinder clearance reference charts, you will be good to go.

*****

But, for those who are interested in deeper tech info, we are still not done looking at what “actually” happens inside a real running engine, because things are just not that simple. There is another significant missing piece of the puzzle to be aware of as well. That missing piece of the puzzle to be aware is, that even though aluminum thermally expands more than cast iron, the cast iron cylinder bore will also thermally expand, or in other words, increase in diameter as it heats up. Yes, metal holes “increase” in diameter as they heat up. They do NOT get smaller as some people INCORRECTLY believe.

Typical gasoline engine combustion temperatures can exceed 1,000*F. But, those temperatures also happen to be approximately the melting point of most aluminum pistons. However, because of the continued ingestion of cold air and fuel, with every intake stroke, and oil cooling the underside of the pistons, damage is avoided. And the average temperature of a piston crown is approximately 600*F.

Since the cylinder’s OUTER surface is in direct contact with the engine coolant, the average temperature of the cylinder is approximately the same as the engine coolant temperature. So, if the 454 engine in this example, is running a coolant temperature of 180*F, then that would be a 110*F increase over a 70*F cold assembly temperature. With that increase in temperature, the bore will increase its diameter by .003″, making it 4.253″.

What this means of course, is that in reality, when you take into account the thermal expansion of the cylinder bores, the pistons thermally expanded even more when they were in development, than what the reference charts would seem to suggest at a casual glance. So, with the example 454 engine being considered, for the “operational RUNNING clearance” of.002 of an inch, the pistons would have actually expanded by the following amounts:

• Ordinary inexpensive cast aluminum pistons = .0055″ actual thermal expansion

• Hypereutectic cast aluminum pistons = .003″ actual thermal expansion

• 4032 forged aluminum racing pistons = .006″ actual thermal expansion

• 2618 forged aluminum racing pistons = .007″ actual thermal expansion

You can see that in reality, the different piston materials do thermally expand quite differently overall.

Now you see why “cold room temperature ASSEMBLY clearances” and “operational RUNNING clearances”, are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. And that piston to cylinder clearance is NOT what many people thought it was.
.

540 RAT

.

.
=================================
.

.

36. Is Motor Oil Viscosity Index (VI) Useful Information?
Three topics of conversation are absolutely guaranteed to generate passionate and nasty arguments between those involved. Those topics are:

• Religion
• Politics
• Motor Oil

Here, we will only look at motor oil. Some of the motor oil topics that are argued about are:

• Zinc level
• Oil base stock types
• Motor oil viscosity selection
• Diesel oil used in gasoline engines
• Break-In oils
• Oil change intervals/extended drain intervals
• Aftermarket additives
• HTHS (High-Temperature/High-Shear)
• Motor oil Viscosity Index (VI)

I have addressed all those motor oil topics in this Blog, except for Motor oil Viscosity Index (VI), which I will address in this article.

The fact is, the vast majority of the people involved in these emotional and ridiculous motor oil topic arguments, have NO idea what they are actually talking about. They read a few articles on motor oil, and then they think/believe they are motor oil experts. These people are made up of two distinct groups.

One group includes people who simply do NOT know any motor oil FACTS at all, and just rehash the same old myths that people have been brainwashed to believe. They just accept the old false info with no proof at all, backing up that old info. They think if something has been said over and over again a million times, it has to be true. But of course, that thinking is dead wrong.

The other group is made up of people who have seen the FACTS, but choose to bury their head in the sand, and continue clinging to those old myths, rather than admit to themselves or others, that they have been wrong all these years. So, both groups end up being their own worst enemies.

They don’t even know that a lot of what they read about motor oil is either NOT correct in the first place, or else it is so highly theoretical, that it is meaningless in the real world. In other words, they don’t even know, what they don’t know. Seeing these people argue by using completely wrong or meaningless information, always makes me laugh. These people can never make sound decisions about anything related to motor oil. Very sad.

And that is what prompted me to start this Motor Oil Engineering Test Data Blog in the first place. So that people had a source for the FACTS about motor oil, based on actual Engineering tests, NOT just opinions and theories that they find everywhere else. The Science of Physics and Chemistry determine the results of my Engineering tests. And Science is ALWAYS correct, whether people like it or not. And it is completely foolish to argue with Science.

****

The subject of this motor oil Tech Article is Viscosity Index (VI), and how valuable it may or may not be in the real world. But first, a little review is in order. Let’s look at 3 motor oil aspects.

1. FILM STRENGTH

“THE MOST IMPORTANT” motor oil capability is its ability to prevent engine wear. PERIOD. Everything else motor oil does, comes “AFTER” that. In fact, everything else a motor oil does, is directly or indirectly in support of preventing wear.

A motor oil film can be defined as a coating of motor oil that is too thin to flow, run or drip. An example of a motor oil film at work, is the thin coating of oil between parts that slide or push/slide/twist over each other. Such as rocker arm type followers that slide over the cam lobes, DOHC engines where the cam lobes directly push/slide/twist on buckets, and traditional push rod engines where the cam lobes directly push/slide/twist on lifters.

And what separates the best motor oil on the market from the worst motor oil on the market, is their “film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance/boundary lubrication limit” values, given in PSI in my motor oil Engineering test results. The psi value each oil is capable of producing, represents its ultimate failure point, which is what we compare to rank oils for their ability to prevent engine wear.

For our purposes here, we can just shorten all that to an oil’s “film strength” PSI value. That film strength value is determined only by the oil’s proprietary factory “additive package”, which is what includes the extreme pressure anti-wear components. The base oil being used, and the viscosity rating involved, have absolutely NOTHING to do with an oil’s wear protection capability, contrary to what many people believe.

2. Incompressible Hydrodynamic Liquid Oil Wedge

Motor oil film strength is only involved in protecting rod and main bearings from wear, when an engine has been sitting long enough that only an oil film remains between the bearings and crankshaft at start-up. That makes a highly ranked oil’s film strength very important in that regard. However, 99% of the time, those parts are kept separated and protected from wear, by the incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge that is formed as the liquid oil is pulled into the clearance by the spinning crankshaft. Oil pressure serves only to supply the oil to that clearance between the bearings and the crankshaft journals.

Physics proves to us that no liquid can be compressed, which for example, is why watery thin brake fluid works in braking systems. So, “no matter how thin” the motor oil viscosity, as long as the oiling system is capable of providing sufficient HOT oil pressure to provide enough oil flow to maintain the critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge between the bearings and crankshaft journals, it is not possible for any wear to take place between those parts. In order to provide sufficient oil pressure/flow to maintain that critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil with thinner oils, a high volume oil pump my well be needed, depending on the bearing clearances involved.

What this means is that when it comes to keeping rod and main bearings separated from crankshaft journals, to prevent wear or damage, it makes no difference if you use $3.00 per quart motor oil, or if you use $30.00 per quart motor oil, since no liquid can be compressed. So, the cheapest motor oil or the most expensive motor oil, both provide the SAME incompressible liquid capability.

3. Oil pressure

Oil pressure itself does not directly prevent engine wear. Oil pressure is only a measure of resistance to flow. So, it does not help an engine at all, to use super thick oil in order to increase the oil pressure. But, knowing that your engine makes sufficient HOT oil pressure is essential. Because that tells us if the oiling system is robust enough to keep up with the oil bleed-off out of the bearing clearances, in order to maintain that critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge between the bearings and crankshaft journals. So, even though oil pressure by itself does not directly help prevent wear, knowing that the oil pressure is acceptable, is extremely important.

In general, it is best to use the thinnest viscosity motor oil that will still maintain sufficient HOT oil pressure. Thinner oil is best because thinner oil flows, lubricates and cools critical engine components better than thicker oils can. Thinner oils reduce bearing temperatures and sump temperatures compared to thicker oils. Thinner oils can also help increase horsepower and miles per gallon. Using thicker oil than is needed, is going the wrong way. See my Blog’s “Section 2” on motor oil viscosity selection, and the benefits of using thinner oil, for all the details.

*****

Now, on with the topic of Motor Oil Viscosity Index (VI).

The physical property used to quantify an oil’s resistance to viscosity change with temperature is known as the Viscosity Index (VI). The higher the VI, the more resistant to viscosity change the oil is.

EVERY motor oil thins out as it heats up and thickens as it cools down, no matter what its identifying viscosity rating is.

Multi-grade motor oil viscosity properties are typically given at 40*C (104*F) cold value, and at 100*C (212*F) hot value.

Motor oil thickness is given in an accurate measurement called centistokes (cSt). The HIGHER the cSt value, the THICKER the oil.

ASTM D2270 is used to determine the Viscosity Index (VI) value.

ASTM D445 is used to determine the cSt @ 40*C and cSt @ 100*C, values.

*****

Here, we’ll look at an assortment of synthetic and conventional motor oils, as well as some Bio-based motor oils.

SYNTHETIC PETROLEUM-BASED OILS:
.
5W30 Amsoil Signature Series
Viscosity Index = 162 / 59.7 cSt @ 104*F / 10.3 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 83% between 104*F and 212*
.
5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability
Viscosity Index = 170 / 66.65 cSt @ 104*F / 11.60 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 83% between 104*F and 212*
.
5W30 Valvoline Modern Engine Oil
Viscosity Index = 165 / 55.0 cSt @ 104*F / 9.8 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 82% between 104*F and 212*
.
5W30 Valvoline Advanced Full Synthetic
Viscosity Index = 158 / 60.1 cSt @ 104*F / 10.2 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 83% between 104*F and 212*
.
5W30 Pennzoil Platinum
Viscosity Index = 170 / 53.9 cSt @ 104*F / 9.8 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 82% between 104*F and 212*
.
******
.
5W20 Amsoil Signature Series
Viscosity Index = 153 / 50.6 cSt @ 104*F / 8.8 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 83% between 104*F and 212*
.
5W20 Quaker State Ultimate Durability
Viscosity Index = 157 / 46.76 cSt @ 104*F / 8.41 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 82% between 104*F and 212*
.
5W20 Valvoline Modern Engine Oil
Viscosity Index = 165 / 49.1 cSt @ 104*F / 9.0 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 82% between 104*F and 212*
.
5W20 Valvoline Advanced Full Synthetic
Viscosity Index = 147 / 46.5 cSt @ 104*F / 8.1 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 83% between 104*F and 212*
.
5W20 Pennzoil Platinum
Viscosity Index = 167 / 45.9 cSt @ 104*F / 8.6 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 81% between 104*F and 212*
.
******
.
0W20 Amsoil Signature Series
Viscosity Index = 169 / 47.1 cSt @ 104*F / 8.8 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 81% between 104*F and 212*
.
0W20 Quaker State Ultimate Durability
Viscosity Index = 165 / 44.61 cSt @ 104*F / 8.33 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 81% between 104*F and 212*
.
CONVENTIONAL PETROLEUM-BASED OILS:

.
5W30 Quaker State Advanced Durability
Viscosity Index = 158 / 63.4 cSt @ 104*F / 10.6 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 83% between 104*F and 212*
.
5W30 Valvoline Daily Protection
Viscosity Index = 168 / 63.0 cSt @ 104*F / 11.0 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 83% between 104*F and 212*
.
5W30 Pennzoil
Viscosity Index = 158 / 63.4 cSt @ 104*F / 10.5 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 83% between 104*F and 212*

******
.
5W20 Quaker State Advanced Durability
Viscosity Index = 150 / 49.2 cSt @ 104*F / 8.5 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 83% between 104*F and 212*
.
5W20 Valvoline Daily Protection
Viscosity Index = 146 / 50.0 cSt @ 104*F / 8.5 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 83% between 104*F and 212*
.
5W20 Pennzoil
Viscosity Index = 150 / 49.6 cSt @ 104*F / 8.5 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 83% between 104*F and 212*
.
BIO-BASED OILS:

.
5W30 Renewable Lubricants Bio-SynXtra
Viscosity Index = 177 / 49.0 cSt @ 104*F / 11.0 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 78% between 104*F and 212*
.
******
.
5W20 Renewable Lubricants Bio-SynXtra
Viscosity Index = 179 / 45.0 cSt @ 104*F / 8.8 cSt @ 212*F
viscosity reduction of 80% between 104*F and 212*
.
*****
.
You would like to see an oil be thin enough to flow well during cold start-up, when the oil is thickest, yet not be overly thin at hot operating temperature, when the oil is thinnest. See my Tech Article, “23. Multi-viscosity motor oils are not exactly what some people think”, for more details.

.
The higher the Motor Oil Viscosity Index (VI) value, the less the oil is supposed to thin out when it reaches hot operating temperature.

.
• So, let’s look at Viscosity Index (VI) values and the percentage of cSt oil thickness drop seen between the 40*C (104*F) cold value, and 100*C (212*F) hot value. We’d like to see the lowest percentage of drop possible.
.
*****
.
5W30 synthetic oils:
The highest VI = 170 and 82% was the least amount of cSt oil thickness drop seen from the oils above.
The lowest VI = 158 and 83% was the drop amount seen.
.
*****
.
5W20 synthetic oils:
The highest VI = 167 and 81% was the drop amount seen.
The lowest VI = 147 and 83% was the drop amount seen.
.
*****
.
0W20 synthetic oils:
The highest VI = 169 and 81% was the drop amount seen.
The lowest VI = 165 and 81% was the drop amount seen
.
*****
.
5W30 conventional oils:
The highest VI = 168 and 83% was the drop amount seen.
The lowest VI = 158 and 83% was the drop amount seen.
.
*****
.
5W20 conventional oils:
The highest VI = 150 and 83% was the drop amount seen.
The lowest VI = 146 and 83% was the drop amount seen.

.
NOTE: Conventional oils use “viscosity improvers” in order to prevent excessive thinning out as they get hot, to provide acceptable performance in running engines, and for them generate acceptable VI values for their spec sheet. However, viscosity improvers breakdown as mileage accumulates on the oil. So, that makes it important to change conventional oils at reasonable intervals, before those viscosity improvers can no longer do their job.
.
*****
.
5W30 Bio-based oil
VI = 177 and 78% was the drop amount seen.
.
*****
.
5W20 Bio-based oil
VI = 179 and 80% was the drop amount seen.
.
*****
.
SUMMARY of what all these numbers mean:
.
•Let’s look at the oils in each type and viscosity that did the BEST job of NOT thinning out too much, when they reached the hot temperature evaluated, which is what we’d like to see.
.
5W30 synthetic Quaker State Ultimate Durability with a hot 11.60 cSt value
.
5W20 synthetic Valvoline Modern Engine Oil with a hot 9.0 cSt value
.
0W20 synthetic Amsoil Signature Series with a hot 8.8 cSt value
.
*****
.
5W30 conventional Valvoline Daily Protection with a hot 11.0 cSt value
.
5W20 conventional, a tie between Valvoline Daily Protection, Pennzoil, and Quaker State Advanced Durability with a hot 8.5 cSt value
.
*****
.
5W30 Bio-based Renewable Lubricants Bio-SynXtra with a hot 11.0 cSt value
.
*****
.
5W20 Bio-based Renewable Lubricants Bio-SynXtra with a hot 8.8 cSt value
.
*****
.
•Let’s look at the oils in each type and viscosity that were the thinnest when cold, to provide the best flow at cold start-up.
.
5W30 synthetic Pennzoil Platinum with a cold 53.9 cSt value
.
5W20 synthetic Pennzoil Platinum with a cold 45.9 cSt value
.
0W20 synthetic Quaker State Ultimate Durability with a cold 44.61 cSt value
.
*****
.
5W30 conventional Valvoline Daily Protection with a cold 63.0 cSt value
.
5W20 conventional Quaker State Advanced Durability with a cold 49.2 cSt value
.
*****
.
5W30 Bio-based Renewable Lubricants Bio-SynXtra with a cold 49.0 cSt value
.
*****
.
5W20 Bio-based Renewable Lubricants Bio-SynXtra with a cold 45.0 cSt value
.
CONCLUSION:
.
•Let’s look at “overall”, which oil in each viscosity rating that was the thinnest for best cold start-up flow, no matter what type of oil it was.
.
5W30 Bio-based Renewable Lubricants Bio-SynXtra with a cold 49.0 cSt value
.
5W20 Bio-based Renewable Lubricants Bio-SynXtra with a cold 45.0 cSt value
.
0W20 synthetic Quaker State Ultimate Durability with a cold 44.61 cSt value
.
•Let’s look at “overall”, which oil in each viscosity rating that did the BEST job of not thinning out too much, or in other words, was the thickest at the hottest test temperature, which is what we’d like to see, no matter what type of oil it was.
.
5W30 synthetic Quaker State Ultimate Durability with a hot 11.60 cSt value
.
5W20 synthetic Valvoline Modern Engine Oil with a hot 9.0 cSt value
.
0W20 synthetic Amsoil Signature Series with a hot 8.8 cSt value
.
Unfortunately, as you can see in the cold and hot conclusion values just above, one single oil is not the best at both cold and hot temperatures.
.
*****
.
So, which oils provide the best “OVERALL” viscosity at “both” cold and hot temperatures, even if they are not the absolute best at both temperatures?
.
•5W30 Renewable Lubricants Bio-SynXtra with a cold cSt value of 49.0 and a hot cSt value of 11.0, is the best 5W30 overall, in terms of viscosity changes, because it “IS” the best when cold, and nearly ties for the best when hot, among the oils looked at here.
.
•5W20 Renewable Lubricants Bio-SynXtra with a cold cSt value of 45.0 and a hot cSt value of 8.8, is the best 5W20 overall, in terms of viscosity changes, because it “IS” the best when cold, and nearly ties for the best when hot, among the oils looked at here.
.
*****
.
And what about the question asked in the title of this article? Is Motor Oil Viscosity Index (VI) Useful Information?

Among all the petroleum based oils looked at here, the Viscosity Index (VI) values varied from:

A high of 170, with an 82 and 83% drop in viscosity from cold to hot.

A low of 146, with an 83% drop in viscosity from cold to hot.

So, the high and low Viscosity Index values varied by a quite significant 14%, yet the actual viscosity drop percentage was exactly the same.

Even if you select a high VI value of 170, you cannot expect any better performance than you could get from a low VI value such as 146.

That is clear proof that Viscosity Index (VI) values do NOT provide any useful information, and are effectively worthless.

And that is also further proof of what I often say, that a lot of what people read about motor oil is either NOT correct in the first place, or else it is so highly theoretical, that it is meaningless in the real world. Viscosity Index (VI) values are just one example of that.

*****

Before ending this article, let’s see if there is any worthwhile information we can salvage from all these numbers.
.
5W30 Renewable Lubricants Bio-SynXtra with a Viscosity Index of 177, had a cold cSt value of 49.0 and a hot cSt value of 11.0, which was a viscosity drop of only 78%.
.
5W20 Renewable Lubricants Bio-SynXtra with a Viscosity Index of 179, had a cold cSt value of 45.0 and a hot cSt value of 8.8, which was a viscosity drop of only 80%.
.
The viscosity drop percentages for these two bio-based oils were the lowest and best of the entire group of motor oils considered in this article. What this means, is that you need to reach Viscosity Index (VI) values in the mid to upper 170’s before they provide any useful guideline information.
.
For the oils reviewed in this article, only those two bio-based oils had VI values that high. And while these two bio-based oils had good numbers here, and the 5W30 version performed very well in my Engineering Wear Protection Capability testing, it will be tough for these oils to be successful in the marketplace. Because almost no one has ever heard of them, they have little or no advertising, little or no distribution, and have not earned any API certifications.
.
That leaves virtually the entire motor oil market for petroleum based motor oils, along with their worthless Viscosity Index (VI) values. So, the only thing people can do if they are interested in a motor oil’s hot and cold cSt numbers, is to look them up individually, on the oil maker’s website, and completely ignore their VI values.

.

540 RAT

.

.

=======================

.

.

37. Air Cooled Engines – Oil Viscosity Recommendation

Some people who run air cooled engines have been confused by my general recommendation to use motor oil as thin as HOT oil pressure will allow. Let me clarify that, so there is no confusion.

My Blog started out in support of modified High Performance and Racing V-8 water cooled Automotive engines, that are no longer setup to follow the original factory Shop Manual guidelines. Most of those owners INCORRECTLY believed they should use crazy thick 20W50 oil, since they run those engines very hard. So, my Blog shows them numerous reasons why using such an overly thick oil in “ANY” water cooled Automotive engine is the WRONG thing to do.

And over time, the interest in my Blog grew exponentially to include all engines, including motorcycle engines, most of which today are also water cooled.
But of course, there are still some air cooled engines, such as traditional Harley Davidson motorcycle engines, etc. NOTE: For air cooled engines in general, I “DO” recommend using multi-viscosity, thick “hot rated” oils such as 5W50, 10W50, 15W50, 20W50, 10W60 or 15W60. Because air cooled engines cannot control their oil temperature very well at all, especially when operated aggressively in hot weather.

Motor oil becomes thinner and thinner, as its temperature becomes hotter and hotter (it does NOT get thicker as it gets hotter, as some people mistakenly believe, due to their confusion over the labeled viscosity ratings). As oil becomes hotter and thinner, the oil pressure and the oil’s wear protection capability DECREASE. So, using a thick oil in air cooled engines to begin with, prevents the oil from becoming so dangerously thin under extreme conditions, that it could damage the engine. In other words, using thick motor oil in air cooled engines, provides a higher margin of safety.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION:
In air cooled engines, I recommend using thick hot rated motor oils such as 5W50, 10W50, 15W50, 20W50, 10W60 or 15W60 for the best engine protection.

.
540 RAT
.
.
=================================
.
.
38. Direct Injection “Only” Engines’ HUGE PROBLEM, and the meaning of API SN “PLUS”, and GM dexos1-“Gen 2”

API SN “Plus” and/or GM dexos1-“Gen 2” on a motor oil bottle, means that the oil also meets a newer additional specification for protecting against Low-Speed Pre-Ignition (LSPI) in small Turbocharged Gasoline Direct Injection (TGDI) engines. It does not mean that the oil was even changed, it only means the oil meets that new specification.

A little background on all that:
High pressure turbocharging along with direct fuel injection in small TGDI engines makes them vulnerable to a potentially damaging condition called Low Speed Pre-Ignition (LSPI). This condition is not well understood. But, there are a number of theories (guesses). However, it is believed that motor oil can be a contributing factor in this condition, depending on its formulation. Research has shown that a small amount of oil in the combustion chamber, may combine with fuel to create hot spots that could lead to this pre-ignition.

Auto manufacturers could reduce the likelihood of LSPI by simply changing the engine operating parameters, but this would affect the performance of these already weak and underpowered small engines. So, they are putting it on the Motor Oil Industry to help them with this situation.

API SN “Plus” and/or GM dexos1-“Gen 2” certified motor oils meet the formulation requirements that are intended to help minimize the amount of oil rich vapors and oil droplets that are drawn into the intake air, that could potentially contribute to Low-Speed Pre-Ignition (LSPI) in those small Turbocharged Gasoline Direct Injection (TGDI) engines.

This issue about LSPI only pertains to those small TGDI engines. So, if you don’t have one of those specific engines, you don’t have to be concerned about this particular issue.

THE HUGE PROBLEM WITH DIRECT INJECTION “ONLY” ENGINES:

But, any oil rich vapors and/or oil droplets that are present in the intake air, also contribute to forming hard baked-on deposits on intake ports, intake valves, piston crowns, combustion chambers. And this is yet another reason why “Direct Injection only” engines should never have been rushed to market without adequate real world testing. The general claim is that Direct Injection provides better performance, better fuel economy and better emissions. But, many late model engines, high performance or otherwise, are not Direct Injection. They are Port Injection, and they perform just fine, get good mpg, as well as meet all of the latest emissions requirements.

Nearly all cleaning of intake ports, intake valves, piston crowns, combustion chambers, normally comes from the cleaning agents in the “fuel” being used. But, that is a HUGE problem for “Direct Injection only” engines, since fuel vapor does not wash over the intake ports and intake valves to keep them clean, like it does with Port Injection engines.

So, over time and miles, the inevitable never-ending baked-on deposits build-up on “Direct Injection only” engine intake valves and intake ports, which WILL eventually, significantly reduce the engine’s performance. Because the excessive deposit build-up will choke-off the intake flow. It is just unbelievable, that in the 21st Century, we would have such a poorly developed and tested engine design, showing up in millions of engines.

That excessive baked-on deposit build-up will ultimately require a “Direct Injection only” engine’s head or heads to be removed, so that the valves can be removed for cleaning or perhaps even replacement (if spray cleaners on the market, don’t get the job done well enough). Of course by this time, the repair will also require a valve job, if the job is done correctly. And all that is a very expensive proposition, if you don’t or can’t do the work yourself. But, that job will be quite time consuming, even if you do it yourself. And remember, if your engine had Port Injection engine, it would NOT have this problem.

“Direct Injection only” engines spray fuel directly into the combustion chambers under extremely high 2,200 psi or higher pressure. But, Port Injection engines spray fuel into the intake ports at much lower 40 to 60 psi pressure. In “Direct Injection only” engines, increased contaminants get past the piston rings and into the crankcase oil. That allows the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system to draw in oil rich vapors into the intake air, where those vapors and any oil droplets that may be present, though not enough to blow blue smoke out the exhaust, combine with hot exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) gases, to end up forming those baked-on hard deposits.

Some Auto Manufacturers are scrambling to modify their “Direct Injection only” engine designs with refined injectors and software, to try and duplicate the excellent component cleaning capability that Port Injection engines have always had. They are also working on air/oil separation improvements. But, they are facing an uphill battle with “Direct Injection only” engines, which is an inherently poor design to begin with. And it will take a number of years, millions of combined miles, and the experience of millions of real world customers, to determine whether or not their attempted “Direct Injection only” component cleaning refinements/improvements are really as good as Port Injection has always been.

BOTTOM LINE:

By far, the best option is the incorporation of a combination of both Port Injection AND Direct Injection onto the same engine. Ford Motor Company for one, is using just such a combination that uses low pressure “Port Injection”, ALONG WITH high pressure “Direct Injection” in many of their newer engines. They refer to it as their port-fuel and direct-injection (PFDI) system with two injectors per cylinder. Port fuel injection will keep intake valves and intake ports clean, while also enjoying the benefits of Direct Injection, all at the same time, in the same engine. That way, they have the best of both worlds, which allows them to further improve performance, while avoiding that dreaded hard deposit build-up that “Direct Injection only” engines experience.

So, a little real world advice: Do yourself a favor, and avoid “Direct Injection only” engines like the plague. And instead, look only for the “Dual Injection” type engines, when you are ready to purchase a new vehicle.

.

540 RAT

.

.

===================================

.

.

39. Which Motor Oil is best, 5W30 or 10W30?

5W30 is almost ALWAYS the better choice. Here’s why:

Both oils are rated as 30wt oils when at normal HOT operating temperature. So, they are equivalent where an engine spends 99% of its life.

But, 5W30 is rated as a 5wt oil when cold, where 10W30 is rated as a 10wt oil when cold. That means 5W30 will flow better, and thus lubricate better, during cold engine start-up and during engine warm-up, when the colder and thicker oil is not flowing as freely as when it is fully warmed up. The cold flow advantage of 5W30 is ideal, and highly desirable. So, there is absolutely no benefit to using 10W30 in most engines.

As in most things in life, there is also an optimum motor oil viscosity for most engines. And then there is thinner than optimum, as well as thicker than optimum.

5W30 is really the optimum motor oil viscosity overall, for most water-cooled gasoline engines, including High HP engines. Any viscosity thinner than 5W30, is thinner than optimum. And any viscosity thicker than 5W30 is thicker than optimum.

So, I personally use 5W30 in all of my own engines, from mild to wild. And I recommend that my Blog readers also use 5W30.

However, the only exception is for those few engines out there that may make bothersome cold start-up noise with 5W30, that can be eliminated with 10W30. Other than that purpose, there is no good reason for anyone to ever use 10W30.

.
540 RAT
.
.
=================================
.
.
40. Can the sound of a Failing Wheel Bearing, actually be SOMETHING ELSE?

Wheel bearings typically don’t fail very often, especially in vehicles that are not that old. But, once in a great while, if you are keenly aware of the sounds coming from your vehicle, you may hear a sound while driving down the road, particularly on a smooth road surface, that sure sounds like a wheel bearing in the process of failing. But, as you will see below, that is fortunately, often NOT the case.

It can be difficult to describe in words, what something sounds like. But, experience has shown, that the sound of a wheel bearing failing can be described as a mechanical sounding whine, and/or a rumbling sound, depending on the mode of failure, where the pitch will typically change with mph changes. And because a single wheel bearing failure is at one corner of a vehicle, it is usually not all that difficult to isolate which one has the problem.

It is also not unusual for tires to make some level of road noise. In fact, if you look at most Tire Reviews, they typically provide some information about the road noise experienced with the tire being reviewed. But, since tire noise is typically coming from all four tires making a general overall noise, there is no specific location to isolate. So, that can help in determining that the noise is coming from the tires, rather than from a failing wheel bearing.

So, I thought it might be helpful to share with my Blog readers who may not have run across this somewhat unexpected and a little bit bizarre phenomenon, that exceeds what would generally be considered the normal variation in typical street tire road noise.

I’ve had first-hand knowledge of this from time to time, for over ten years. For me, it has involved four completely different vehicles which all had less than 75,000 miles on them, with completely different tires, with completely different tread wear hardness ratings ranging from 100 to around 500, that have all made a “bad wheel bearing sounding noise”, while driving down the road. And they all turned out to NOT be a failing wheel bearing at all.

In these cases, most of the “failing wheel bearing sounding noises” started instantly or stopped instantly, when the tires were changed. But, this out of the ordinary noise did also show up as just being a characteristic of certain tires at a specific mph. Here’s a list:

• 2005 Front Wheel Drive, V-6 Mid-Size, Cross-Over SUV with Continental tires. The tires started making a general “bad wheel bearing sounding noise” at most any road speed, when they were around 75% worn out. At that time, the tires were not suspected of being part of the problem. But, when nothing could be isolated as a mechanical cause of the noise, the decision was made to monitor the noise, and listen for any change. But, the noise never did change during the remainder of the time those tires were run. However, the noise immediately disappeared when the tires were replaced with a brand new set of the same Continental tires. That noise condition was apparently caused by the outer edge tread blocks being irregularly worn from aggressive cornering, as miles accumulated on the tires. So, it turned out that the wheel bearings were NOT involved at all.

• 2014 Rear Wheel Drive, V-8 Sport Coupe’s Factory Pirelli’s also started making a general “bad wheel bearing sounding noise” at most any road speed, when they were about 50% worn out. But once again, the noise immediately disappeared when the tires were replaced with a brand new set of tires, which in this case were Nitto’s. That noise condition was apparently also caused by the outer edge tread blocks being irregularly worn from aggressive cornering, as miles accumulated on the tires. And once again, the wheel bearings were NOT involved at all.

• 2003 Rear Wheel Drive, V-8 Sport Coupe, had been running a set of Nitto NT555 RII, DOT Approved Competition Road Race tires, with a normal looking, uniform, symmetrical tread pattern, that never made any noticeable road noise at all. Those tires aged out and had to be replaced. But, Nitto replaced those tires with their new and improved NT01 DOT Approved Competition Road Race tires, which have a funky looking, non-uniform, asymmetrical tread pattern. And immediately after those new tires were installed, the car produced a “bad wheel bearing sounding noise” at 80 mph +/- 2 or 3 mph. So, here we go again. Nothing changed but the tires.

• 2016 Front Wheel Drive, V-6 Mid-Size SUV with factory Michelin tires, from day one when bought brand new, it always made a “bad wheel bearing sounding noise” at 60 mph +/- 2 or 3 mph. This was the same type of certain mph noise as the one discussed immediately above, though at a different mph, on a completely different vehicle, with completely different tires. But, after nearly four years, at the time of this writing, and 43,000 miles, there has not been any mechanical problem show up. So, it is simply tire noise once again.

• And just for comparison, a 2011 same model and same generation Front Wheel Drive, V-6 Mid-Size SUV with factory Goodyear tires on it, which was for all intents and purposes, other than tires, the same exact vehicle as the 2016 Mid-Size V-6 SUV immediately above, never made any tire road noise at all during the four years it was in use by its owner.

In my experience, TIRE ROAD NOISE that sounds like “a wheel bearing in the process of failing”, can vary by tire brand, tire model, tread pattern, tread wear, and mph, all of which can make a real difference regarding out of the ordinary road noise. This unexpected and sometimes annoying tire noise is not really a problem per se, though some people might end up pulling their hair out, trying to troubleshoot a mechanical problem that does not exist. But, this somewhat weird phenomenon, seems more common than we might have thought, if we pay close attention.

So, if you run into a noise like this and cannot isolate it to any specific location, keep in mind that it may not be a mechanical problem at all, and it may simply be your tires.
.
540 RAT
.
.
==================================
.
.
41. Why do some OEM’s call for super thick motor oil in only “Certain” versions of a particular engine?

I received a question here on my Blog’s Q&A Section about why some OEM’s (Original Equipment Manufacturers), or in other words, Auto Makers, call for super thick motor oil in only “Certain” versions of a particular engine. I thought this topic would be worth sharing here as a Tech Article in the main body of my Blog, so that others, who may have wondered the same thing, can see the information. Here is what was asked, followed by my response:

Hey there Rat!

I just recently came across this and figured you may be able to help. On Ford Mustang 5.0 V-8’s, the 2013-2014 Boss 302’s version (5.0L = 302 cubic inches, for those wondering) of that “Coyote” engine, as it is called internally at Ford, calls for super thick 5W50 motor oil.

The Gen 2 “Coyote” engine in the 2015-2017 Mustang GT, is the exact same engine internally, but Ford calls for 5W20 in that engine. What reasoning can you come up with that accounts for this making sense? Same engine, but Ford says they require different oils?

I have a gen 3 “Coyote” engine used in the 2018 and on Mustang GT, which has been gaining attention due to piston slap and having longblocks replaced. Many people are switching to 5W50 and I can’t get a straight answer to why people are doing this. Do you have any input?

Thank you very much for your research and contributions. They mean a lot to us inquisitive types who don’t know all that much about motor oil.
.
=============
.
Hi there,

Ford and BMW both call for super thick oil in their Higher HP engines. Ford calls for 5W50, and BMW calls for 10W60. It does not make any sense to you, because they are dead wrong, meaning it does NOT make any sense at all. This is a huge mistake made by Factories that simply do NOT understand motor oil. Here’s why:

When a motor oil layer is thick enough to be actual flowing “liquid” oil, all motor oils are equal, because all “liquids” are incompressible, no matter how thick or thin they may be. Remember, watery thin brake fluid is also an incompressible liquid. That is how hydraulic brakes can function. So, by the Laws of Physics, all incompressible liquid motor oils provide the SAME wear protection capability, since they CANNOT be compressed to allow metal to metal contact. So, viscosity has NOTHING to do with the oil’s wear protection capability, when it is in a flowing liquid form, such as when it is flowing through main and rod bearing clearances. Therefore, all flowing “liquid” motor oils are equal in that form, no matter what brand or viscosity you may use. So, using super thick oil CANNOT change or improve a “liquid” oil’s wear protection capability.

In addition to that, one of the FACTS determined and confirmed over and over again, by my Engineering tests on motor oil, is that when a motor oil layer is so thin that it is only an oil “film”, it is the oil’s “film strength” that provides its wear protection capability. And an oil’s film strength is determined by the extreme pressure anti-wear components in its additive package, NOT by its viscosity. So, using super thick oil CANNOT improve an oil’s film strength.

My Engineering testing on motor oil, proves beyond any doubt, that base oil and viscosity do NOT play a role in an oil’s wear protection capability. What DOES determine a motor oil with excellent wear protection capability, from a motor oil with poor wear protection capability, is each individual oil’s proprietary “additive package”. That’s it, no matter what else you may read of hear. I back this statement up with the Engineering Test Data throughout my Blog, which is determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. And no sensible person would try to argue against Physics and Chemistry, which are Scientific FACTS.

Motor oil viscosity does however, have an effect on oil pressure. And if an engine is designed properly to use far more desirable thinner oils, those thinner oils can provide excellent oil pressure. So, there is NO technical benefit to using super thick oils. In fact, using super thick oil is absolutely the WRONG thing to do. See my Blog’s “Section 2 – Motor Oil Viscosity Selection”, for the reasons why thinner oils are FAR better.

So, considering the proven information above, I am extremely disappointed that both Auto Makers are so out of touch with the FACTS about motor oil, that they INCORRECTLY “believe” with no proof what so ever, that super thick oil is needed for Higher Performance engines. I would expect much better from them, because they should know better. And as a result, BMW has had a huge number of rod bearing failures in their High Performance “M” engines, largely because of using ridiculously thick 10W60 motor oil. See my Tech Article “29. Eliminating BMW M3/M5 Rod Bearing Failures”.

Ford calls for 5W20 in their normal Mustang 5.0 GT V-8 “Coyote” engines, only for slightly improved MPG, and nothing else. That thin oil was forced on Ford Engineers who did NOT want it, just to help increase the Company’s C.A.F.E. (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) numbers. I know this for a fact, because I have spoken with Ford Engineers who told me exactly that.

The fact is, “ALL” of Ford’s 5.0 V-8 “Coyote” engine variations would be best served with a High Performing 5W30 Motor Oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, if they are run aggressively at all. 5W20 is thinner than ideal, and anything thicker than 5W30 is thicker than ideal.

For those not familiar with my background and Credentials, I’m a Degreed Mechanical Engineer, U.S Patent Holder, Engine Builder, Drag Racer, and life-long Mechanic. In fact, I was a Professional Mechanic while going to College. I have wrenched on Cars, Trucks and Motorcycles since I was a teenager.

And I put my money where my mouth is. One of my weekend Hotrod’s, is a modified 600 HP, Ford SVT Cobra Mustang, with the “Terminator” engine, as they were called internally by Ford. It is a 2003 model, which was the first ever, Factory Supercharged Mustang. So, taking my own advice, I run 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability full synthetic in it. And the engine is perfect. I also have 5W30 in my 800 HP, 540 cubic inch, Big Block Chevy Rat Motor. That engine is also perfect. In addition to that, I have Buddies who run 5W30 and/or 10W30 in even higher HP Sportsman Drag cars. And they have never had any problem with that. That is first-hand, real world proof that 5W30 absolutely works perfectly well, even in High HP engines.

And using super thick oil is NOT a cure for piston slap, which is caused by excessive piston to cylinder clearance. The cure is to correct the piston to cylinder clearance. And the easiest way to do that, is to replace the engine with a properly built engine. People who switch to 5W50 to address piston slap, have no idea what they are doing. So, do NOT follow their WRONG line of thinking about motor oil.

CONCLUSION:

As stated above, there is NO technical benefit to using super thick motor oil, even in High HP engines. In fact, using super thick oil is absolutely the WRONG thing to do. And once again I will say, see my Blog’s “Section 2 – Motor Oil Viscosity Selection”, for the reasons why thinner oils are FAR superior to thicker oils.
.
.
===================================
.
.

42. Should a MAF (Mass Air Flow) Sensor screen be left in or taken out?

First, let’s all get on the same page. What many people do not realize, is that “ALL” HP/Torque dyno printout info, and “ALL” HP/Torque claims made by Auto Factories, or Aftermarket Performance Product Companies, are taken at WIDE OPEN THROTTLE (WOT), no matter what rpm may be referenced. Values listed for say 3,500 rpm are taken at WOT, the same way values listed for say 6,000 rpm are taken at WOT. And other than dyno printouts which show a “range” of values, all other posted/published/claimed “specific” values, are PEAK MAX values only. Let that soak in for a moment.

What that means is that “ALL” of the HP/Torque numbers you ever see, only apply to WOT such as MAX EFFORT racing. That’s it. So, those numbers that you argue with your buddies about, mean absolutely NOTHING for normal street operation, which take place almost entirely under PART THROTTLE conditions. Now let that soak in for a moment.

Most Hotrodders, Racers, and Aftermarket intake system companies, have no clue what so ever, as to why Factories put a screen mesh, or a honeycomb mesh in front of the MAF sensor on fuel injected engines. So, if the owner is modifying the intake system in any way, they simply think the factory is stupid and remove the mesh, or an Aftermarket Company will say to their buyers, to remove it.

But, Factory Engineers are NOT stupid. They know full well that those meshes are needed for proper part throttle operation on the street, which is also called drivability. Factories invested in the Engineering, testing, development, and incorporation of those meshes, all of which added to the price of the car. And they hate increasing the price any more than they absolutely have to. One of my Engineering Colleagues, used to work at Ford Motor Company as an Automotive Engineer. And he told me that they would argue endlessly over something as seemingly silly as a $2.00 price increase for some part. So, it would have been far easier and cheaper for the Factory to have left the screen off, if they didn’t really need it.

Something else to consider, that most people do not. For most automotive engines in general:

• Torque is the most dominant factor during the LOWER 1/3 to 1/2 throttle opening and LOWER 1/3 to 1/2 of the rpm range.

• HP is the most dominant factor during the UPPER 1/3 to 1/2 throttle opening and UPPER 1/3 to 1/2 of the rpm range.

• And both Torque and HP overlap and are significant factors during the MIDDLE 1/3 throttle opening and the MIDDLE 1/3 of the rpm range.

But, most people don’t even consider the importance of Torque during street operation, even though TORQUE IS THE MOST DOMINANT FACTOR during street operation. And remember, as stated above, dyno HP/Torque values and other claimed HP/Torque values, do NOT apply to part throttle street operation. To evaluate part throttle, moderate rpm, street performance/operation, it really comes down to your own “seat of the pants” evaluation. And that is EXACTLY where the MAF sensor screen mesh/honeycomb meshes are MOST important.

The MAF sensor screen mesh/honeycomb meshes, are designed to SMOOTH THE AIRFLOW PASSING OVER THE MAF sensor, for proper part throttle operation. But, if they are removed, here are some of the problems you may experience during “street operation”, because of TURBULENT AIRFLOW over the MAF sensor:

• Reduced Torque, resulting in weak performance at low rpm and small throttle openings, where it seems like it is an effort for the vehicle to get out of its own way, when leaving a stop, or just generally driving around. This is even more noticeable with manual transmission vehicles, and can make it seem like the first gear ratio is too tall.

• Erratic idle, especially when the Air Conditioning (A/C) is off. When the A/C is on, the idle speed is increased, and the idle is usually more normal.

• The engine my die occasionally when the vehicle comes to a stop, especially with manual transmission vehicles. Automatic transmission vehicles have a larger throttle opening even at idle.

As an Engineer myself, I knew full well why those screen meshes are used and why they are needed. But, in the pursuit of max performance, I have also removed it from one of my own High Performance cars, when I installed an Aftermarket air intake system. That intake system replaced the factory air filter housing and used a K&N air filter. And no surprise, I experienced all those street operation problems listed above. But, for a long time, I left the screen out anyway, all in the name of max HP. Even though normal street performance was seriously reduced, the justification for suffering that, was that at large throttle openings and high rpm, the car was extremely quick and fast.

But ultimately, I had to be honest with myself, and admit that setting the car up for racing, did not make a lot of sense. Because the car is only used as a High Performance street car, and NOT as a dedicated race car. Therefore, I eventually put the screen and factory air filter housing back on. After doing that, the part throttle street performance was instantly amazingly improved. In fact, it felt like a whole new car.

And another thing I did in addition to putting the air filter housing back to stock with the screen, was I also put in a K&N factory replacement air filter, instead of the highly restrictive factory paper air filter. This Factory Supercharged car has the best factory air intake system I have ever come across. So, going back to that, ALONG WITH the K&N air filter, made all the difference.

Because this car’s Supercharged engine is fairly highly modified, I run 100 octane unleaded race gas in it, which costs $10.00 per gallon. So, another very welcome improvement from putting the screen and mostly stock air filter housing back on, is that I have also noticed a reduction in fuel consumption. And that is further proof that the engine was just not running efficiently during street operation, without the MAF sensor screen. So in the end, I lived to completely regret that I ever removed the MAF sensor screen. Sometimes being a Hardcore Hotrodder, can take you down a less than ideal path.

From now on, I will always leave the MAF sensor screen installed, and use a K&N factory replacement air filter, on “street only” vehicles. The longer you live, the wiser you become.

CONCLUSION:

• I recommend that you be completely honest with yourself about what is most important to you. If you decide that your car is really a High Performance “street car”, and not a dedicated race car. And that street performance is really what is most important to you. Then it is clearly best to leave the screen installed in front of the MAF sensor, and to also use a much better flowing K&N or equivalent air filter.

• This recommendation applies to all fuel injected engine types, no matter if they are naturally aspirated, Supercharged, Turbocharged, gasoline or Diesel.

• But, if your car is a dedicated “race car”, and all you care about is max effort performance, then remove the screen for any additional air flow you may get.

===

The day after I posted this Tech Article 42, I received the following testimonial from an overseas Blog reader, after he read this. He had experienced the same exact issue after he removed the MAF sensor screen/honeycomb mesh from his Turbo Diesel engine.

Here is what he said:

Hi 540 RAT,

I’m participating the less possible in your Q & A blog, but … here is my experience about Tech Article 42 and MAF screen removal issues.

I’ve experienced such a “mess” on my Rogue Sport (EU Qashqai) 1.5L (turbo diesel) engine, when I deleted MAF honeycomb, in order to achieve max torque and hp values during ECU reflash at WOT. A final achievement of 152hp instead of 110 at 4100rpm and 244lbft from 191 at 1900rpm are welcome.

But despite its supercharged nature, driveability had some issues when throttle was partly (below 0.5) opened in city driving style. I had my car configured like this for more than a year, with 4 in. of pipe deleted along with the filterbox in favor of a K&N cone filter. These 4 inches were housing MAF screen too.

Finally, a month ago, I replaced the whole system with the OEM filterbox and the whole OEM piping, but with a K&N panel specific 1.5L filter.

First few miles, and I thought that better throttle response was a placebo effect 500 miles and I really noticed that this response was not only in my mind What the hell? I asked a Nissan authorised service store engineer and said that MAF screen is for a purpose.

It doesn’t cost more than 10 euros to Nissan factory and plays a significant role in idle to part throttle modes.

Next step was a visit on dyno to see if 152 hp was still there. No, there were not all of them, but consider this: 150.3 hp is not a cry-for loss. On the other hand, better throttle response and faster turbo spool-up at POT (part open throttle) improved everyday driveability.

Apart from this, 241lbf of max torque are available @ 1750rpm instead of 1900+ rpm.

I wrote all these, because Tech Article 42 describes a fact that applies to turbo diesel engines too, as far as I’m concerned.

E.C. from Greece

============== My response to him is here:

Hi again E. C,

Thanks for sharing your experience that was exactly the same as my new Tech Article 42 describes, regarding MAF sensor screen removal.
.
540 RAT
.
.
===================================================
.
.
43. Keeping the Battery properly charged in Modern Computer Controlled Vehicles that sit much of the time

A lot of automotive enthusiasts, have at least one vehicle that is not a daily driver. As such, that type of vehicle can often just sit for an extended period of time. If they sit for only a week or so at a time, that isn’t a problem. But, for those that may sit for weeks at a time, or even longer, it can be a problem, especially if they are modern computer controlled vehicles. Because modern computer controlled vehicles, typically have a fair amount of electrical draw on the battery, even if there is nothing wrong with the vehicle. That being the case, the state of the battery’s charge when you try to start the engine again, after it has been sitting, can be iffy. So, using a battery charger to keep the battery fully charged, becomes important.

Normal automotive batteries will last the longest if they are kept fully charged throughout their life. And since daily driver vehicles charge their batteries every day, keeping them fully charged, their batteries typically have the longest life.

Over the years, I have casually kept track of when countless normal daily driver automotive batteries have failed, and had to be replaced. I have not seen any particular brand be any better or worse than any other brand. And that makes sense when you consider that there are very few automotive battery factories that manufacture all the batteries on the market. So, many batteries are identical except for the stickers on them. And even batteries that have different color outer casings, may be identical internally. All of this can make the particular battery brand, irrelevant for the most part. Auto batteries are considered disposable items, and as such, are not generally made well enough to last as long as consumers might like. Because all the Battery Industry wants to do, is keep selling more batteries.

Here is an “APPROXIMATE” breakdown of what I have seen over the years, regarding the failure point of normal daily driver automotive batteries:

• 75% of the batteries typically fail when they are between 3 and 4 years old.

• 20% of the batteries last longer than that, and may not fail until they are as much as 7 years old. But, the longer you go beyond 3 to 4 years, the more likely it is that you will get stranded by a sudden battery failure. Typically, all will seem fine, but the next time you try to start the engine…………..nothing. This is where replacing the battery before it actually fails, can save you a lot of grief.

• 5% of the batteries fail when they are less than 3 years old, with the earliest I’ve seen, being only 1 ½ years old.

But, the battery life of modern computer controlled vehicles that sit a lot, can vary greatly, depending on how steadily the battery’s full charge is maintained. The more closely a battery’s charging is, to being the same as in vehicles that are driven every day, the better it is for the battery and the longer it will last.

BATTERY CHARGERS:

Battery Chargers typically come in two basic types:

1. “Smart/Automatic” Battery Charger/Maintainer: This type of charger has more advanced circuitry. This type does NOT apply constant amperage until the battery is fully charged. It varies the amperage as needed. So, it can be left on indefinitely without overcharging concerns.

2. “Standard/Dumb” Battery Charger: This type of charger DOES apply constant amperage the whole time it is charging, and it will NOT automatically turn off when the battery reaches full charge. So, it must be removed from a battery as soon as the battery reaches full charge, to avoid overcharging and damaging the battery, which could lead to overheating, fire and explosion. So, this type of charger should NOT be left on charging unattended 24/7. Because even a low amperage trickle charger version of this type can and will overcharge and damage a battery.

I have used a number of different battery chargers over the years, which were mostly “Standard/Dumb” 12V/6V, 50A engine start/10A quick charge/2A trickle charge type chargers. Some were the same brand, while some were different brands, all purchased at different times. But, they all seemed to have fairly poor quality (two Sears Diehard battery chargers didn’t even work when brand new, right out of their box). The amp gauges they had often didn’t work properly, but they usually charged batteries well enough for a couple of years or so, then they would completely fail. Then I’d be on to the next one.

The Battery Charger that I liked the best of all so far, was a 12V, 0-6 amp, “Smart/Automatic” Battery Charger/Maintainer. But it is no longer available. So, all you can do is ideally get a 12V, 6 amp “Smart/Automatic” Battery Charger/Maintainer. Then see how well it works for you, and how long it lasts.

There are of course, a couple of different ways to keep a battery charged in a vehicle that sits a lot.

• The best way would be to leave a “Smart/Automatic” Battery Charger/Maintainer, to always keep the battery fully charged, without overcharging and damaging it. This would essentially be the same way a daily driver’s battery is kept fully charged at all times. This steady charging would prevent having any discharge/recharge cycle spikes, and would allow the battery to achieve the longest life possible. This might work for those who have the vehicle inside, and have a “Smart/Automatic” Battery Charger/Maintainer, that is of high enough quality that they are not concerned about leaving it charging unattended 24/7.

But, if you have a “Standard/Dumb” individual trickle charger, they are by their very nature, inexpensive and typically not of the best quality. And being a “Simple/Dumb” charger, it will not “automatically” turn off when the battery is fully charged. So, that type of charger should NOT be left on charging unattended 24/7. Because even a low amperage trickle charger version can and will overcharge and damage a battery. And not all vehicles that sit, are conveniently located inside a garage or shop in the first place. So, having wires/cords and the charger itself, continually outside in the weather and being unsecured, would also not be desirable for many people.

• But, another option that some might prefer, would be to simply “periodically” connect whatever battery charger you have available, to charge the battery over a reasonable number of hours, when they could keep an eye on things. Then simply remove the charger when the battery is fully charged.

Here’s what I have seen with periodic battery charging using a larger battery charger:

Charging a battery once a month, using a fairly large “50A engine start/10A quick charge/2A trickle charge”, charger set to the 10A setting, that senses the amount of charge needed, and tapers down as needed until the battery reaches full charge, results in excessive discharge/recharge cycle spikes due to that higher 10A quick charge amperage and the amount of time between charging. All that can damage the battery, reducing how long it can hold a charge. So, that often forces you to reduce the time between charging to every 3 weeks, and finally to every 2 weeks, as the battery condition deteriorates. Charging a battery in this manner, will typically reduce its life overall to perhaps as short as 1 to 1 ½ years, which is an unacceptable situation.

A much better plan is to charge the battery “once a week”, using a smaller “6A medium charge/2A trickle charge” mid-size charger, set to the 6A setting, that also senses the amount of charge needed, and tapers down to zero when the battery reaches full charge. Or some of the relatively small 6A only chargers, that also taper down to zero when the battery reaches full charge, would also be fine. This setup could possibly take as long as two hours each week, for a modern computer controlled vehicle to be fully charged. And that is probably a reasonable amount of time for most people to keep an eye on the charging, while they do other things. But, the amount of time required for charging can vary greatly, and could be much less, depending on the specific vehicle involved.

Here is some specific data on charge times required for a few different computer controlled vehicles that sit a lot:

One is a 2003 computer controlled vehicle. This vehicle has a continuous small draw from its computer and from its “bright” 24/7/365 factory security system confirmation light that flashes once every second in the dash. Most people probably would not think that these flashes would amount to much. But, you’d be surprised how all those flashes add up. Here are the flash totals:

60 times per minute

3,600 times per hour

86,400 times per day

604,800 times per week, which is way over half a million flashes

2,620,800 times per month, this is approaching 3 million times

And a whopping 31,449,600 times per year!!!

Every flash draws a little charge off the battery. And from these number totals, you can see that the draw off the battery definitely adds up to a lot of draw over time. If that light flashes on for only ¼ second, in a week’s time, it adds up the same as if the light had been on steadily for 42 hours over that week. It does not run the battery dead in a week, and after sitting for a week, this vehicle will still start perfectly fine with its battery as is, with no extra charging, even though it has become partially discharged.

So, simply listening to how well a battery can start a vehicle is NOT a good way to accurately monitor a battery’s actual charge condition. The easiest way to get an accurate indication of a battery’s state of charge, is to put a battery charger on it, and see how long it takes to reach a full charge.

The whole idea here, is to keep a battery in a vehicle regularly, as fully charged as possible. This will fairly closely duplicate a daily driver’s always charged battery, in order to achieve normal full battery life.

This particular vehicle ends up requiring a 6 amp charger, for about 1½ hours EVERY WEEK, to reach fully charged condition. Because of that light constantly flashing in the dash, this vehicle has always had a significant draw on its battery, since the day it was bought brand new. It is just characteristic of this particular make and model manufactured at that time. If it is driven daily, of course you aren’t even aware of any draw at all. Because a daily driver always keeps its battery fully charged.

But, if this vehicle sits for a month with no battery charging, the battery ends up too dead to start the engine, due to the draw from that flashing dash light. Because 2,620,800 flashes in a month, each a 1/4 second in duration, adds up the same as if the light had been on steadily for 182 hours over that month. Now you can see how a little draw really adds up over time, to discharge a battery.

****

If you still have any doubts about how a small drain can discharge a battery, try this easy test and you will see for yourself. Turn on the dome light “manually, so it should stay on”, in a vehicle that is not being driven. Then try starting the vehicle several days to a week later, depending on that particular battery’s capacity. And you will see for yourself, how that little light can certainly drain the battery fairly quickly, to the point that the battery will be too dead to start the engine. This has accidentally happened countless times over the years. So, it is a well know battery discharging situation.

****

Now, comparing the vehicle above, to a different vehicle of the same make and model. But, this second vehicle is a newer 2014 computer controlled vehicle that has a battery somewhat larger than the 2003 model above. The continuous small draw from this vehicle’s computer and its “bright” 24/7/365 factory security system confirmation light that flashes once every TWO seconds in the dash, ends up requiring a 6 amp charger for about 1½ hours EVERY OTHER WEEK to reach full charge. With regard to charging the battery, the main difference between these two vehicles, other than battery size, is the fact that this 2014 model’s dash light only flashes HALF AS OFTEN as the older vehicle above, which as you can see in the charging time required, makes a significant difference.

****

Now, compare both vehicles above, to yet a different third vehicle of the same make, but a completely different model. This one is a newer yet 2019 computer controlled vehicle, but it does NOT have any “bright” 24/7/365 factory security system confirmation light that flashing in the dash at all. And as a result, if a 6 amp battery charger is put on this one after it has been sitting for a week, it only takes about 2 minutes, yes 2 minutes, for the charger to indicate a full battery charge. So, that is clear evidence that a flashing dash light can make a huge difference in the draw on the battery. This vehicle only has the computer drawing on the battery when it is sitting, which turns out to be extremely little draw.

SUMMARY
The best way to keep the battery charged in a modern computer controlled vehicle that sits a lot, is to charge the battery at a lower rate, more often, to more closely mimic the continuous battery charging of a daily driver. That is ideal for maximizing battery life, as well as for making sure it will always start any time you hop in to go somewhere. And using a 6A charger, once a week, works well on most vehicles that sit a lot, if using a “Smart/Automatic” Battery Charger/Maintainer to trickle charge it 24/7 isn’t a workable option. And if the vehicle is inside and secure, leaving the hood only lightly closed, instead of fully latched, will make it more convenient to pop the hood every week. Then just fully latch the hood each time before you drive it.

However, as shown in the three examples above, a vehicle’s need for weekly battery charging can vary widely, mostly depending whether or not is has a constantly flashing light in the dash. So, here’s what I recommend:

• After a vehicle has been sitting for a week, put a 6 amp battery charger on it until the battery is fully charged.

• If the vehicle takes a half an hour or more for its battery to reach full charge, then continue to charge it every week to closely duplicate a daily driver’s battery always being kept at full charge. This will enable the battery to reach its full normal life span.

• If the vehicle takes “LESS” than a half hour for its battery to reach full charge, then keep adding one week at a time to your charge interval, until the charge time takes a half an hour or more. There is no pressing need to put a charger on, if it takes less than a half hour to reach full charge.

ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT BATTERY TECH INFO  

Here is something that many car guys are not aware of. Even when a battery charger indicates a battery is fully charged, that does not guarantee that the battery can spin the engine over and start it. Here’s why: A battery that has a bad cell, can and typically will, still reach the fully charged condition, as shown by a charger’s “charge complete” indicator. And it will also show its voltage to be in the mid to upper 12V range. BUT, it will NOT have enough capacity to spin the engine over and start it.

That means trying to rely on a battery’s voltage, and/or the charger showing “charge complete”, is semi-worthless when it comes to telling you if the battery is good or not. Specifically, you can only rely on those indications with confidence, “IF” the battery is actually in good condition. But, if a battery is NOT in good condition, then those indications are completely worthless.

Here’s how to deal with that. A battery load test is the ONLY way to know for sure, if a battery is truly good or not. And there are two ways to do a battery load test:

1. You could simply try to start the engine, which is the ultimate load test. However, simply trying to start the engine, actually tests “two” things at once. It tests the battery “and” the starter system. So, if the engine does not spin over, you don’t know if the battery is bad, or if the starter system is bad. That leaves you with additional troubleshooting to do.

2. Or you can test the battery with a battery “load tester” which is by far the BEST way. Because, a battery load tester, tests only the battery “itself”, and will actually show you directly in one step, if the battery “itself” is truly good or not. That can save you the time and trouble of unnecessarily troubleshooting for a bad starter system, if the battery tests bad in the first place.

NOTE: A battery must be fully charged BEFORE you use a load tester on it, in order to get accurate load test results. But, if a battery cannot reach a fully charged condition, then that shows you right up front that the battery is bad and needs to be replaced.

With a brand new just purchased battery, you usually don’t need to bother with a load tester. Just install the battery and get on with it. But, for a battery that is not brand new, it is best to use a load tester on it, after it is fully charged, before you install it in a vehicle. That way you know in advance, if it is truly a good battery or not. And in the case when a battery is already in a vehicle but will not spin the engine over, even after it is fully charged. It is very handy to use a load tester on the battery first, to determine whether or not the battery itself is good.

A battery “Load Tester” is not that expensive, not that large or heavy, and is easy to use. So, for car guys who do some or all of their own wrenching, a battery load tester is an excellent addition to their garage.
.

*** General 12 Volt battery reference info ***

NOTE: For those not familiar, battery voltage is read in DC Volts (Direct Current Volts).

If you are looking for a Multi-Meter to monitor your battery voltage, and are looking for good Multi-Meter that isn’t too cheap to trust, and isn’t too expensive to afford, I can suggest the Klein MM 400, which is a very good Multi-Meter that is in-between those two extremes.

In the Fall of 2022, the Klein MM 400 was available at Amazon for about $55.00, and it comes with Test Leads and an excellent User’s Manual with pictures and directions. I also consider Alligator Clips to be a “must-have”. So, I recommend also getting the Klein Alligator Clip and Test Lead Kit #69410 for about $18.00, also from Amazon. With that combination, you will be well equipped with far more capability than most car guys will ever need.

Keep in mind, that if your battery terminals are coated with grease to prevent corrosion, you will need to wiggle the Multi-Meter leads well enough to make a good electrical contact, so the meter can indicate a proper reading.

Batteries, Battery Chargers, and Multi-Meter Voltage Readouts can all vary somewhat, but below are typical representative reference values:

Battery Voltage and Charge Percentage:

12.6 Volts to 13.0 Volts = 100% Fully Charged

12.3 Volts = 75% Charged

12.0 Volts = 50% Charged

11.7 Volts = 25% Charged

***

A resting battery (engine/alternator NOT running) should be kept between:

12.3 Volts MINIMUM

and

13.0 Volts MAXIMUM

***

With the engine/alternator running, battery voltage should be between about 13.7 volts and 14.7 volts.

***

While a normal (NOT trickle charger) 6 amp Battery Charger/Maintainer is charging batteries, a battery will typically show 14.4 volts, which is in the range of when the engine/alternator is running.

***

After a battery is fully charged and the Charger/Maintainer is in the Maintenance Mode, batteries show about 13.6 volts.

***

When the Charger shows “Fully Charged”, and the Charger is removed, batteries show 12.6 volts to 13.0 volts as shown above.

.
540 RAT
.
.
=====================================
.
.
44. Which Motor Oil is best, 5W20 or 5W30?

At the time of this writing, 5W20 had generally become the most common viscosity called for in most new vehicle Owner’s Manuals. But, there is some concern about using such a thin oil in certain vehicles, especially in High Performance vehicles that call for 5W20 for normal usage, but then call for 5W30 for track days. So, I get a lot of questions about this in the Q&A Section of my Blog. So, rather than continually answer the same question over and over again, I thought it was time to write a brief Tech Article on this, which would be available to anyone at any time, without them having to write up a Q&A question, and then wait for my response.

5W20 generally replaced 5W30 as the most commonly recommended viscosity in new vehicles, ONLY to “slightly” improve Auto Manufacturers’ C.A.F.E. (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) numbers. It was NOT done to benefit an engine in any way. It was a Marketing decision, NOT an Engineering decision. And any mpg benefit from the thinner oil, is typically so minor, that most people cannot even measure any improvement at all.

5W20 being thinner, will flow, lubricate, and cool an engine somewhat better than 5W30. However, it is thinner than ideal, so there are some downsides to using it. If an engine is driven aggressively or run hard in any manner, the oil temperature will increase above that of normal ordinary driving. And higher oil temps, cause additional thinning of the oil. Since 5W20 was rather thin to begin with, additional thinning is undesirable because, depending on just how high the oil temp gets, the oil may bleed out from the rod and main bearing clearances faster than the oiling system can keep up with. That puts the engine at risk of damaging the main and rod bearings, and lowers the engine’s Margin of Safety. This is why some vehicles call for 5W30 on track days, rather than 5W20. Because 5W30 will not end up as thin at higher oil temperatures, which maintains a higher Margin of Safety to protect the rod and main bearings.

On top of that, most engines using 5W20 will exhibit some mechanical engine noise at hot idle, that can be reduced or eliminated by using 5W30.

However, some people are afraid to NOT use 5W20 if it is called for in their Owner’s Manual. And for them, it is OK to use 5W20 if their vehicle is just an ordinary daily driver that is not driven aggressively. And they probably won’t have any problem, but their engine will likely make some mechanical engine noise at hot idle.

CONCLUSION:
At the end of the day, 5W30 is the ideal/optimum “sweet spot” viscosity to use in most water-cooled, gasoline automotive engines. And 5W30 is still plenty thin enough to provide engines with excellent flow, lubrication, and cooling. Any oil thinner than 5W30 (such as 5W20) is thinner than ideal, and any oil thicker than 5W30 (such as 10W40 or 20W50) is thicker than ideal.

I use 5W30 in my own modified High Horsepower engines. And in my own late model stock vehicles that call for 5W20 from the factory, I have switched them over to 5W30 for better protection when run aggressively, and to eliminate mechanical engine noise. I suggest my Blog readers consider doing the same thing.

.
540 RAT
.
.
=========================
.
.
45. Is it harmful to only occasionally run an engine, due to residual oil runoff causing excessive cold start-up wear?

It is ideal to run an engine every day. So, daily driver engines have the best life, regarding residual oil still being on critical components, when they are started. In this case, cold start-up wear is not a concern.

But, the longer an engine sits between start-ups, the less ideal it is, and the more cold start-up wear becomes a concern. Because the oil does run off of critical components and dry up as well. Cold start-up, is where most engine wear takes place, when there is insufficient residual oil on critical components. We don’t live in a perfect world, so it is what it is.

However, even if an engine is only run every weekend, that is still often enough that I would not call it harmful, it is simply less than ideal. So, you shouldn’t lose any sleep over that.

One of my own Hotrods, which has roller cam lobe followers, typically sits for a month at a time between start-ups and being driven. And after well over 10 years, there is no indication that it is any worse for wear, even though that situation is not ideal. Its oil and filter still look fine at oil change time. The engine still starts immediately, runs great, makes no mechanical noise, the exhaust note sounds awesome, and it does not smoke. So, I would not even call this outright harmful. But, that could vary, depending on a given engine’s design.

Engines that sit for months or years at a time between start-ups, could certainly get into harmful territory, with cold start-up wear definitely becoming a serious concern. And for engines like that, you can prime the engine with oil, depending on its design, before starting it up. Or for any engine, you can plumb in an oil accumulator, and activate it to pressurize oil through the engine before starting it.
.
540 RAT
.
.
==========================
.
.
46. Are Auto Manufacturer Advertised HP numbers accurate?

NOTE: Factory Advertised horsepower numbers are always “engine crankshaft” HP numbers, NOT rear wheel HP numbers.

It’s not entirely clear how all Auto Manufacturers handle their advertised HP numbers vs actual real world HP numbers. But, a number of years ago, Ford cut their advertised HP numbers way to close to the actual production HP numbers, to allow for production variations, and lived to regret it.

Dozens of owners, mostly drag racers, complained that the new 1999 Ford SVT (“Special Vehicle Team”, which is Ford’s High Performance Division) Cobra Mustangs they just bought, did NOT make as much HP as the Factory had advertised, nor did they produce the performance numbers the Factory had advertised. So, Ford recalled them to replace the intake manifold, to replace mufflers (which were too restrictive), to recalibrate the engine computer, and to replace the accessory-belt tensioner with a more reliable unit. Then a decal was installed in the engine bay to certify that the work had been done.

All the uproar leading up to the recall, resulted in at least one lawsuit and one state Attorney General investigation. Adding insult to injury, to deal with fixing the 1999 model, Ford didn’t even offer a 2000 SVT Cobra Mustang. This whole fiasco nearly destroyed Ford SVT’s reputation, created massive bad press, and seriously harmed customer satisfaction. That of course is NOT what any Auto Maker wants.

Ford had learned their lesson big-time. From then on, they underrated their Advertised HP numbers, meaning they claim LESS HP than they really make. That way, customers would never be unhappy with the performance of their vehicles. And if they found out how much HP their vehicle really makes, they would be thrilled to get more than they expected. All that equals excellent customer satisfaction. Good Marketing Plan, but of course customers would no longer know for sure, just how much HP their vehicles actually make in the real world. So, let’s take a look at that.

When their first-ever Factory Supercharged, 2003 SVT Cobra Mustang, with the internally named “Terminator” V-8 engine came out, Ford advertised that it made 390 HP. But, chassis dyno testing, track testing, and comparisons with similar vehicles with accurately known HP, indicated that the new Cobra would actually have to make “approximately” 425 HP, to generate the Performance people were seeing. So, as planned, everyone was thrilled to get more than they expected. Here the 2003 Supercharged SVT Cobra Mustang was showing that it made about 9% more horsepower than the Factory Advertised. You can multiply the claimed 390 HP by 1.09 (which is a 9% increase), and you get 425 HP.

Now, let’s look at a newer example, from the internally named “Coyote” V-8 engine.

5.0 Mustang “Coyote” engine Gen 1 = 2011-2014

5.0 Mustang “Coyote” engine Gen 2 = 2015-2017

5.0 Mustang “Coyote” engine Gen 3 = 2018 and later

Car Craft Magazine recently had a brand new Gen 3 Coyote factory crate engine dyno tested on the Westech engine dyno. The engine was a bone stock Ford engine for a 2018 5.0 Mustang GT.

Keep in mind that we don’t see accessory losses as high in modern vehicles as we used to in the old days. Here’s why. Mechanical fans are no longer used, most power steering units are now electric assist, so there is no pump to drive, emissions air injection pumps are long gone, A/C is never used during a dyno test anyway, and with a fully charged battery in the mix, there is very little drag from the alternator.

So, the biggest difference in engine dyno numbers vs in the car engine numbers (chassis dyno numbers are different) these days, is not due to accessory losses. The biggest difference nowadays is whether or not the car’s normal factory intake system, and its normal factory exhaust system are used on the dyno.

This dyno test was performed properly in order to provide the most accurate numbers. It used the entire factory air intake system, and it used the factory exhaust manifolds and cats. So, the data below is representative of the real world, and is about as accurate as we will ever find for this stock engine.

Ford advertises that this engine makes 460 HP at 7,000 rpm, and 420 ft lbs at 4,600 rpm. The big changes for the Gen 3 engine, was going to Ford’s port-fuel “AND” direct-injection (PFDI) system, increasing the static Compression Ratio from 11:1 to 12:1, and an improved intake manifold.

On this engine dyno, it actually made 497 HP at 7,000 rpm, and 427 ft lbs at 4,800 rpm.

This more accurate engine dyno test, shows that the Gen 3 Coyote engine makes about 8% more horsepower than the Factory Advertised. You can multiply the claimed 460 HP by 1.08 (which is an 8% increase), and you get 497 HP.

Customers will once again be thrilled by getting more than they expected. So, in general, we can use the 8% increase to get a good idea of what the true HP really is for Ford engines. All you have to do is:

• Take Ford’s Advertised HP number, and multiply it by “1.08” to get a close idea of what the true real world HP number really is.

And if one were to buy a new 2019 5.0 Mustang GT, and simply swap out to a K&N or equivalent air filter, and a pair of straight through large diameter mufflers, you’d be looking at the engine making somewhere around an honest 520 or so HP. Not bad, considering how affordable this car is, in the overall scheme of high HP cars.

.
540 RAT
.
.
==========================
.
.
47. Can vehicles that call for 87 octane regular gasoline, benefit from switching to higher octane premium?

Gasoline powered street vehicles can be split up into 3 different basic types, which are:

1. Older vehicles that are NOT computer controlled, and therefore do NOT have knock sensors.

2. Somewhat newer vehicles that ARE computer controlled, but still do NOT have knock sensors.

3. The newer current vehicles that ARE computer controlled, and DO have knock sensors.

Knocking/pinging/detonation, all mean the same thing, and describe an explosion of the air/fuel mixture in an engine’s combustion chamber, rather than the normal controlled combustion/burning of the air/fuel mixture. If left unchecked, knocking/pinging/detonation can and will cause catastrophic engine damage. So, it must be avoided at all times.

For engines equipped with knock sensors, those sensors are designed to detect engine combustion knocking/pinging. If knocking/pinging is detected, it immediately tells the computer to instantly retard the ignition timing, which will prevent pinging to protect the engine from damage. As a result, drivers of engines with knock sensors, don’t have any indication that ignition retard has been activated. It is automatic and idiot proof.

But, for vehicles that are not designed with knock sensors, only the driver can tell by listening, if knocking/pinging/detonation is taking place. And in these vehicles, knocking/pinging can only be properly prevented by using a high enough octane gasoline to prevent it. In an engine with no knock sensor, knocking/pinging typically does not occur when the engine is just cruising along with a small throttle opening, under light loading. If knocking/pinging does happen, it typically happens when the engine is fairly heavily loaded, under larger throttle openings, in a gear that puts the engine at lower rpms.

Examples of this are leaving a stop aggressively and shifting at a somewhat lower rpm, climbing a hill in too high a gear, or climbing a long grade in too high a gear. These examples are made much worse when carrying a heavy load or when pulling a trailer. If an engine is knocking/pinging under one of these circumstances, you can often reduce or eliminate the knocking/pinging by dropping to a lower gear, where the engine has more mechanical advantage. But of course, the real cure for knocking/pinging is to use a high enough octane to prevent pinging in the first place.

Different octane pump gasolines do NOT provide different energy levels. So, they do NOT change the horsepower produced. But, they do provide different anti-knock capabilities. Regular is the worst for protecting against knock, while premium is the best. Of course you have to pay more for higher octane. And major fuel companies often promote their premium fuels as having the best fuel system cleaning agents as well as having higher octane. So, when stepping up to premium, you are getting more for your money.

In the U.S., regular gasoline typically has a posted pump octane of 87. Mid-grade gasoline is typically 89 pump octane. And premium gasoline is typically 91 or 93 pump octane, depending on the state you are located in. So, those who own engines without knock sensors, do have octane levels to choose from, to protect their engines from damage.

But, most of the newer street vehicles with knock sensors can operate on lower 87 octane regular gasoline without damaging the engine, which saves on fuel cost. That’s good, right? The answer is yes, and no. Yes, because of course it protects the engine while using cheaper gas. And No, because retarding the ignition timing to prevent knocking/pinging, also reduces engine power and performance.

For ordinary motorists who have newer vehicles, and only care about saving money on gas, they can select the cheapest 87 octane regular gas, and never give it another thought. But, performance minded enthusiasts would probably be interested to know that more power, better performance, and sometimes improved fuel economy, in most newer current vehicles, is only a matter of moving up to premium fuel.

More power and better performance are possible because with higher octane fuel, the ignition timing can operate with more advance that the engine was designed to use for optimum power and performance. In other words, with premium fuel, there typically will not be any knocking/pinging for the knock sensor to detect. So, the computer does not have to retard the ignition timing which would reduce power.

Here is what several newer knock sensor equipped vehicle Owner’s Manuals, from a couple of different Manufacturers, say about the fuel required:

• One is from a 2014 V-8 Performance car, which says it recommends using 87 octane regular, which it was designed for. But, using higher octane premium will provide improved performance.

• Another is from a 2019 mid-size SUV, which says it was designed for using 87 octane regular. But, it recommends using higher 91 or higher octane premium for best overall performance. There was no distinction between engine sizes, nor any distinction between Turbo and Non-Turbo versions.

• Another is from a 2019 Pickup truck, which says it was designed for using 87 octane regular. But, it also says for best overall performance, 91 or higher octane premium is recommended. Again, there was no distinction between engine sizes, nor any distinction between Turbo and Non-Turbo versions.

• And yet another is from a 2019 large SUV with a 6.2L V-8 engine, which says to use premium 93 octane unleaded pump gas. And it says that unleaded gasoline with an octane rating as low as 87 may be used, but it will reduce performance and fuel economy.

So, as you can see just above, Auto Makers confirm what I’ve said here about higher octane premium providing better performance. Even though this is not new information, many people are simply not aware of it. Therefore, I’ve added this topic to my Blog, so that my readers can learn about it, and understand how it works.

Then in May 2021, Ford announced the difference in performance between regular and premium fuels in their new Bronco model. Here is what they said:

The 2.3 Liter Turbocharged four cylinder engine produces 275 HP and 315 foot pounds of torque with regular fuel.
But with premium fuel, it produces 300 HP and 325 foot pounds of torque.

The 2.7 Liter Turbocharged V6 produces 315 HP and 410 foot lbs of torque with regular fuel.
But, with premium fuel it produces 330 HP and 415 foot pounds of torque.

However, keep in mind, that these values are peak values at wide open throttle.

Therefore, the answer to the title’s question (Can vehicles that call for 87 octane regular gasoline, benefit from using higher octane premium?), is YES.

A number of different organizations have carefully tested and documented the difference between regular and premium, at the ¼ mile drag strip for changes in acceleration, on dynamometers for changes in horsepower, and on the street for changes in fuel economy. The wind-up is usually that there was an improvement in acceleration, there was an improvement in horsepower, and there was an improvement in fuel economy. But, the improvements were typically not large for most vehicles.

However, with regard to drag strip and dyno testing, they are performed only at wide open throttle. That’s how they work. But, most street vehicles are seldom, if ever, operated at wide open throttle. So, the magnitude of those carefully documented improvements are not really relevant for normal street operation. Therefore, one could argue that all the extensive testing on that subject, was largely a waste of time and effort. That leaves street vehicle drivers to determine for themselves, any differences that they can notice during their normal part throttle and moderate rpm street operation.

What to expect in normal real world street operation, after switching from 87 octane regular to 91 or higher octane premium gasoline:

• Don’t expect a meaningful improvement in fuel economy. And any improvement in mpg is typically small enough, that it is offset by the higher cost of premium gas. So, there isn’t much real value in switching fuel, related to fuel economy.

• Ordinary daily driver motorists who drive easy like Granny going for groceries, and don’t pay any attention to how their vehicles perform, will probably never notice a difference between regular and premium.

• BUT, performance oriented enthusiasts who are keenly aware of how their vehicles perform, usually “WILL” notice a difference during their normal more aggressive street operation. The improvement noticed, comes from what is called a “Seat of the Pants” evaluation, which for street operation, is all that really matters. For those enthusiasts, myself included, their vehicles typically clearly feel quicker, faster and stronger with premium fuel. In fact, the improvement in street performance is usually greater than the wide open throttle drag strip and dyno testing data would suggest. And that is further evidence that wide open throttle testing data is not relevant to street operation. As mentioned above, the improved performance is because with higher octane fuel, engines are able to operate with more ignition advance (as much as 6* to 10* of additional ignition advance has been seen by switching from 87 octane regular to 93 octane premium) that they were designed to use for optimum power and performance. Also, replacing the factory paper air filter with a K&N or equivalent air filter, can provide an additional street performance increase.

CONCLUSION:

If you care about quickly and easily improving your vehicle’s performance, try switching to 91 or higher octane premium when your tank of 87 octane regular is nearly empty. Then run at least a couple of tanks of premium through it, while the computer is re-learning the new parameters. Then decide for yourself if the performance improvement is worth the additional cost of only two or three dollars per tank. For most of us performance oriented enthusiasts, we will never go back to 87 octane regular again.

***********

YOU MAY NOT BE GETTING THE OCTANE YOU THINK YOU ARE GETTING:

Here is some troubling info about the octane you think you are buying at the pump. All states in the U.S. require gas pumps to be labeled with the correct octane level. But, not all states do regular testing to make sure gas stations are in compliance. Here are some problems encountered at California gas pumps, which have been noticed with vehicles that do NOT have knock sensors.

For many years, vehicles that were designed to run 87 octane regular, and did so just fine in other states, when brought to California, often immediately started pinging on gas from California pumps that claimed to dispensing 87 octane regular. This also often happened with vehicles that were sold new in California, that were designed to run on 87 octane regular.

So, no matter what the state would have you believe, those gas pumps were not delivering the same octane fuel that other state’s pumps were delivering, even though all the pumps had 87 octane labels on them. So, California drivers don’t know what octane they are really getting, when they think they are buying 87 octane regular. But, experience shows that is below a true 87 octane.

In addition to that, when some fairly low performance stock engines are rebuilt, that used to run fine on California 87 octane regular, they can end up pinging on the same gas after the rebuild. That is because the cylinders are bored oversize as part of the rebuild, which causes the engine’s displacement to increase slightly. And when the heads and block are lightly resurfaced, the combustion chambers end up slightly smaller. All that means that the engine’s static compression ratio increased slightly. And that slight change was enough to create pinging, which should never be the case with such a minor change to the engine. This is further evidence that California 87 octane, is not what it is advertised to be.

And to add insult to injury, California has what they call “Summer Blend” gasoline, and “Winter Blend” gasoline. Another concern, is that it has been found that California Summer Blend 91 octane premium is not actually the same octane as their Winter Blend gas, even though it is still labeled as 91 octane premium. What has happened, is that some High Performance vehicles that ran fine on California Summer Blend 91 octane premium, started to immediately ping, after California switched to their so-called Winter Blend. The octane clearly dropped with the Winter Blend, but the gas pumps are not re-labeled. So again, California drivers are not getting what they are paying for. With proper oversight, this would never be allowed to happen.

For owners of newer current vehicles, this is not really an issue. Because their vehicles are computer controlled, and have knock sensors. So, they don’t even notice that there is a problem, because their vehicles will typically never ping. However, their vehicle’s performance will suffer, even if they don’t notice it.

But, for owners of vehicles with no knock sensor, and especially “performance vehicles” with no knock sensor, this can be very bothersome. And California drivers cannot expect this issue to ever be fixed. Because the California State Government has made no secret of the fact that they ultimately intend to eliminate the use of all fossil fuels. In fact, the State has even proposed banning all internal combustion engines, and mandating that only electric vehicles are sold in California. That has not been made into State Law….yet. But, that means they have no interest in fixing something they plan to ultimately get rid of.

IF CALIFORNIA GAS ISN’T ALREADY BAD ENOUGH, IT ALSO REDUCES POWER AND REDUCES FUEL ECONOMY:

The California Air Resources Board (C.A.R.B.) has admitted that with California’s lower emissions gasoline formulation, there will be a reduction in fuel economy. Some people have noticed as much as a 6-8% loss in fuel economy while using California gas, compared to the same vehicle using gas from other states, under the same type of driving conditions. This is because of the reduced energy in California gas, which of course also means a reduction in horsepower. And that in turn, requires a little more throttle for any given type of driving, than would be required with better gas from other states. In California you have cleaner burning gas, but you use MORE OF IT. So, is there really a significant overall measureable benefit, or is this just “Feel Good” Politics for the California State Government?

California undoubtedly has the worst gas in the U.S. And to make matters even worse, it also has the highest gas prices in the U.S. So, if you do not live in California, consider yourself lucky.
.

540 RAT
.
.
=============================
.
.
48. Can street vehicle performance be increased by switching to a low restriction K&N air filter?

Let me say right up front, that I have no connection to K&N air filters at all. So, their sales success does not involve me in any way. But, the performance improvement that their air filters provide, makes it worth letting my Blog readers know about this, if they don’t already know.

Some Automotive enthusiasts may think that low restriction K&N air filters only benefit Hotrods and Race Cars. But the truth is, the performance of street vehicles can also be increased by switching from a restrictive factory paper air filter, to a low restriction K&N air filter.

And there are those who might be concerned that low restriction air filters may allow dirt in. But, they would let dirt in only if they are used “dry”. The K&N free flowing cotton gauze design requires that they are coated with the required K&N oil. And all new K&N air filters come right out of the box, already pre-oiled from the factory. So, you don’t even have to be concerned about putting the oil on them yourself. The oil coated cotton gauze makes it perfectly fine to use a K&N air filter on street vehicles.

You don’t have to use the oil yourself, until the time comes to re-oil the filter after cleaning it. K&N offers the cleaning solution and the filter oil. Though many people don’t want to bother with all that, so they simply put in a new K&N air filter when the old one needs to be cleaned. So, you have that option as well.

A normal street application in the real world, would typically require the filter to be cleaned and re-oiled, or else replaced with a new one, every 20,000 miles or so. But, the actual calendar interval really comes down to how many miles you put on per year, and how dirty/dusty your driving conditions are.

Countless people, myself included, have been using K&N air filters for many years on street vehicles with no problem at all. And of course the main point is that they increase the performance of all engines, including street engines, compared to using the much more restrictive factory paper air filters.

There are dyno testing horsepower increase numbers available for many of the K&N air filter applications. But, dyno tests are performed only at wide open throttle. That’s how it works. But, most street vehicles are seldom, if ever, operated at wide open throttle. So, the magnitude of those dyno test increases are not really relevant to normal street operation. That leaves street vehicle drivers to determine for themselves, any “Seat of the Pants” differences that they notice during their normal part throttle and moderate rpm street operation.

And the old “Seat of the Pants” performance improvement evaluation typically does reveal street performance improvements after switching to the free flowing air filter. In fact, the improvement in street performance is usually greater than the wide open throttle dyno testing data would suggest. That is further evidence that wide open throttle dyno testing data is not relevant to street operation. And the performance improvement is particularly noticeable on Supercharged and Turbocharged street engines that really move a lot of air. In those applications, there is often a dramatic performance improvement when switching from the restrictive factory paper air filter, to the low restriction K&N air filter.

I am running K&N air filters on all of my own street vehicles, which include both naturally aspirated and Supercharged engines. The performance improvement with all of them, during street operation was clearly obvious to me. But, I am very much in tune with how my engines perform.

However, not everyone is as keenly aware of how their vehicles perform. Therefore, some may not notice the performance improvement as much. And on low performance vehicles, the absolute performance improvement may seem small, even if the percentage improvement is similar. Therefore, everyone will have to decide for themselves. But, I would never go back to restrictive paper air filters again.

So, if other enthusiasts are interested in a quick and inexpensive way to improve their street vehicle’s performance, they should consider switching from the restrictive factory paper air filter, to the low restriction, oil coated cotton gauze K&N air filter. K&N has countless air filters in stock, ready for shipping, for most any application. Check their website for details.

Again, I have no connection to K&N what so ever. I am only providing this information to my Blog readers as a courtesy. It is of course, up to them to decide for themselves, if they are interested in making this change.

540 RAT

.
.
==============================
.
.

49.  35 Oil Filters cut open, from 21 different Brands, compared and evaluated for manufacturer commonality, quality of design, quality of construction, and ranked from Best to Worst

I’ve had a number of requests on my Blog to provide oil filter recommendations. But, I never got around to doing that…….until now. You should find this Tech Article on Oil Filters to be the best, most complete, and most useful you will ever find, that cannot be found anywhere else.

But, before getting into all the details about oil filters, it is important to keep in mind that, the “motor oil” you use is MORE important than the particular oil filter you use. Because excellent High Performing motor oils, such as the highly ranked oils on my Wear Protection Ranking List, are so good at preventing wear, that any oil filter being used, will have less particulate matter to filter out. For the best engine protection, I recommend selecting a motor oil from my Ranking List that produces more than 120,000 psi in my Engineering Torture Test on motor oil, which puts it in the FANTASTIC Wear Protection Category. And it is also important to change the oil and oil filter at reasonable intervals, such as every 5,000 miles for normal daily driver vehicles.

All of the oil filters evaluated in this Tech Article will work well enough for the most part, that they will not typically cause engine damage or failure. But, if you came to this Blog, you are the kind of person who cares about using what is BEST on and in your engine, rather than using something that is “just good enough” to get by. After you carefully read this article on Oil Filters, you will be able to make an informed decision as to which is the BEST oil filter for your engine.

SYNTHETIC FILTER MEDIA VS NON-SYNTHETIC CONVENTIONAL FILTER MEDIA

In this Tech Article, 35 oil filters from 21 different brands, were cut open and compared for manufacturer commonality, quality of design, quality of construction, and ranked from Best to Worst. Quality of design and quality of construction, is the MOST IMPORTANT information to know, if you want the best oil filter for your engine. Because typically, micron size filtration capability does not vary that much between most oil filters, or filter media types. However, there is one “Notable Exception”, which you can read about at the end of this Tech Article.

So, particulate size filtration capability is NOT the determining factor in which filter to use. Synthetic media typically holds a larger quantity of total particulates, which allows a synthetic filter media oil filter to go longer between changes. But, synthetic filter media typically does NOT necessarily filter out smaller micron sized particulates. In fact, sometimes synthetic media does NOT filter out as small a micron size as conventional filter media does. Here are a couple of examples, using Purolator and Fram Oil Filters:

• Purolator Classic # L 12222, their bottom level oil filter, claims to be 97.5% efficient at filtering 20 micron sized particles, with its non-synthetic filter media.

• Purolator Pure One # PL12222, their mid-level oil filter claims to be 99.9% efficient at filtering 20 micron sized particles, with it non-synthetic filter media.

• Purolator Synthetic # PSL 12222, their previous top of the line oil filter, claims to be 99% efficient at filtering 25 microns sized particles with its SYNTHETIC filter media.

• Fram Tough Guard #TG3387A, their bottom level oil filter claims to be 99% efficient at filtering particles larger than 20 microns, with it non-synthetic filter media.

• Fram Extra Guard # PH10060, their mid-level oil filter claims to be 95% efficient at filtering particles larger than 20 microns, with it non-synthetic filter media.

• Fram Ultra # XG10060, their top of the line oil filter claims to be 99% efficient at filtering particles larger than 20 microns, with it SYNTHETIC filter media.

So, as you can see, the Purolator SYNTHETIC filter media oil filter, has a good efficiency value for a “larger” sized micron particulate matter than Purolator’s non-synthetic conventional filter media oil filters, which have good efficiency values for “smaller” sized micron particulate matter. But, their SYNTHETIC filter media filter is called a 15,000 mile oil filter, where the others with non-synthetic conventional filter media are called 10,000 and 5,000 mile oil filters. This is a perfect example of how SYNTHETIC filter media is NOT capable of filtering out smaller particles than non-synthetic conventional filter media. SYNTHETIC filter media is only capable of holding “more” particulate matter, which allows it to go longer between changes.

And you can see that the Fram SYNTHETIC oil filter is also NOT capable of filtering out smaller particulates than their non-synthetic conventional media filters.

It also shows you that some of the most well-known names in Oil Filters, produce good efficiency numbers for 20 to 25 micron sized particulate matter, no matter if you are looking at SYNTHETIC or non-synthetic filter media filters.

****

Automotive Forums are famous for spewing nothing but WRONG information from unqualified people who do NOT know what they are talking about. Now there is another BAD discussion saying that oil filters with conventional filter media should never be used because water in the oil clogs the media.

However, those incompetent people who should NOT be commenting on anything, are not aware that if you regularly run your engine for at least a half an hour after it reaches normal operating temperature, all water condensation will be burned off, and there will be no concern about water in your oil or oil filter. That is what I always do and recommend that my readers do too.

I pulled out a number of “used oil” Lab printouts I have, from different vehicles, driven by different people, to double check the water content in those “used oil” samples. For reference, the water content in brand “new” virgin motor oils that came right of the bottle, all showed water content of <0.05%, which is essentially NONE.

All those “used oils” with around 5,000 miles on them, also showed water content of <0.05%, which is essentially NONE. That means there was absolutely no difference between new and used oils in terms of water content.

So, that whole Forum discussion about water content being a problem for conventional filter media oil filters in that Automotive Forum, was once again, TOTAL NONSENSE. People need to understand that you simply CANNOT trust anything posted on Automotive Forums, because most all of it is nothing but garbage.

I have been a hardcore car guy for decades. So, I have used countless oil filters over the years. But, I’ve never used an oil filter with synthetic media. Every oil filter I have used, had conventional filter media. I’ve also cut many of them open over years when they were removed from an engine to be changed. And they all were perfect just like they should be. I’ve never had any engine problems at all. There is simply nothing wrong with using conventional media oil filters, when they are changed at reasonable intervals.

BOTTOM LINE: Many people have been completely misled to believe that SYNTHETIC media oil filters are the “be all, and end all”, of oil filters. But, that is simply NOT true. If you change your oil and oil filter at the ideal interval of every 5,000 miles for normal street driven vehicles, there is no benefit at all to using a SYNTHETIC media oil filter. Consider that the next time you to buy an oil filter for your engine.

There are a lot more brands of oil filters on the market than there are oil filter manufacturers. Do the math, and it easy to realize that multiple oil filter brands are made by the same manufacturer. Most modern name brand oil filters generally do what they are intended to do, which is to provide good filtration of the motor oil that is flowing from outside the filter media, through it, and to the inside of the media, without issue. So, for the most part, end users would typically be hard pressed to tell them apart, based on their performance. In fact, it is much more important that a high performing motor oil is chosen, and that it and its oil filter are changed at reasonable intervals, than it is which specific oil filter is chosen.

Sure, oil filters may vary a “little” by filter media capability, pressure drop, and/or bypass valve opening pressure. But, for most applications, that is just splitting hairs. And most people don’t really have a meaningful reason for choosing one oil filter brand over another. However, after reading this Tech Article on Oil Filters, people WILL have a meaningful reason for choosing one brand over another.

Typically, SYNTHETIC media oil filters are the most expensive. And people have been fed propaganda that they filter out smaller particulates and can hold more total particulates, allowing them to go longer between changes, to justify spending the extra money. So, people have been falsely brainwashed to believe that SYNTHETIC oil filters are vastly better than non-synthetic conventional filter media oil filters. But, the truth is, that is only a scam to separate people from more money. We just discussed above how SYNTHETIC media oil filters DO NOT and CANNOT filter out smaller particulate matter. The only thing that is true, is that SYNTHETIC media can typically hold more total particulates, so it can go longer between changes. But, of course that is worthless if you change your oil and filter at ideal intervals.

PARTICULATE MICRON SIZE CLAIMS

You may read or be told that the best and most expensive oil filters are capable of filtering out particle sizes down in the 5 to 10 micron range. But, that is completely misleading. Here’s why. No oil filter media filters out just one particulate micron size. All filter media filters out a range of particulate micron sizes.

Most quality name brand oil filters could correctly state that they are 100% efficient at 30 microns. (NOTE: Stating how efficient an oil filter is, has no meaning unless they also state “at what micron size” they are that efficient at. So, when an oil filter claims it is say, 99% efficient, without also stating the micron size, that claim is totally meaningless. You can consider that kind of thing misleading or even false advertising). But, the problem is, only stopping 30 micron sized particles, is not stopping small enough particles for proper engine protection. So, claiming that wouldn’t sell any oil filters.

Consider the following example that illustrates how oil filter % efficiency works.

A given oil filter might truthfully say it is:

100% efficient at 30 microns, and nothing that size gets through to the engine

95% efficient at 25 microns, but here 5% of that size gets through

90% efficient at 20 microns, but here 10% of that size gets through

85% efficient at 15 microns, but here 15% of that size gets through

80% efficient at 10 microns, but here 20% of that size gets through

75% efficient at 5 microns, but here 25% of that size gets through

You get the idea. The oil filter does filter out multiple micron sizes, but at different percentages of efficiency. And oil filter percentage of efficiency goes DOWN as micron size goes down. Everyone would like their oil filters to have 100% efficiency for filtering out very small particles. But, no physical filter media is capable of doing that. But of course, advertisers like to show efficiency numbers as high as possible. However, they have to generally be honest about the size of the particulates at that percentage. It works out that most oil filter media is capable of relatively high percentage efficiency in the 20 to 25 micron range, like we saw above with the Purolator and Fram oil filters. So, when you ever see or hear something about 5 to 10 micron filtration, just remember how that really works. And that the only micron size efficiency claims that can be used for meaningful comparison, are those in the 20 to 25 micron size.

SIZE MATTERS

The larger the oil filter the better. Here’s why. An oil filter acts as an oil cooler dissipating heat, assuming it is not behind the exhaust system. So, the larger the oil filter, the better it is for oil cooling. And the larger the filter, the larger the filtering media square inches that can fit inside. And the larger the square inches of filtering media, the less restrictive the oil filter is to oil flow, and the more particulate matter the media can hold. In the past, traditional American engines had oil filters that were nearly the size of a quart of oil. One I checked could hold .77 of a quart of oil.

But, the extremely small oil filters we see today, are only a fraction of that size. The best way to have sufficient filtration in a small oil filter, is to have enough pleats in the filter media, so that it has the largest number of square inches of surface area that is practical. The more square inches, the less restriction. But, today’s tiny little oil filters by definition, are more restrictive than the large filters from the past. That additional restriction means the bypass valve will be open even more than in the past.

OIL FILTER BYPASS VALVE

Oil filter bypass valves come in various pressure specs, depending on the manufacturer and the filter media restriction. Some pressure specs you may find, include 8 psi, 16 psi, and 22 psi. But, here is where many people get confused, because they don’t understand what these pressure specs mean. Some people think the bypass valves open at those pressures due to the pressure generated by the engine’s oil pump. And since engine oil pressure is far higher than those pressure settings, they think the bypass valves are always open, but they are not sure. So, let me clear up all that confusion.

Those bypass valve pressure specs refer to oil pressure “differences, also called delta or pressure drop” between the OUTSIDE of the filter media where engine’s oil pump pressure is pushing on it, and the INSIDE of the filter media AFTER the oil has passed through it. Oil filter media by definition will always create some restriction, and therefore some oil pressure drop. This pressure drop is the actual oil pressure that the engine itself see’s AFTER the oil filter (so, oil pressure gauges must be plumbed in AFTER the oil filter). The less restrictive the filter media, the less pressure drop you will see, and the more restrictive the filter media, the more pressure drop you will see. When there is a pressure difference equal to or greater than the bypass valve pressure spec, the valve will open.

Here’s an example:
Let’s say we have an oil filter with a 10 psi bypass valve spec. And say our engine’s oil pump relief valve allows the oil pump to produce no more than 65 psi, with hot or cold oil. With cold oil, the oil pressure can easily reach 65 psi even at lower rpm, while hot oil will take more rpm to reach 65 psi. So, we fire up a stone cold engine with cold thick oil, and the outside of the filter element see’s that 65 psi. But, because cold thick oil has a much harder time passing through the oil filter element, there would be a pressure drop from the outside of the filter element, to the inside of the filter element, of MORE than 10 psi. So, when the pressure drop reaches 10 psi, the bypass valve opens and your engine is getting unfiltered oil.

So, as you can see, the oil filter bypass valve opens semi-regularly during cold start-up and during warm-up, if the engine is run too hard before the oil is up to normal operating temperature. The fact is, the filter media is highly restrictive to sufficient oil flow, when the oil is cold and thick, if the engine is run too hard during that time. So, oil filter bypass valves are designed to open under cold oil and/or aggressive cold oil driving conditions, in order to prevent oil starvation to the engine. Once the oil warms up and thins out, the bypass valve will typically not be open because the pressure drop will be less than the bypass valve’s spec. To minimize the amount of unfiltered oil going through your engine, you should always run an engine easy until it gets up to normal operating temperature.

***** Which is better, a LOW bypass valve psi rating, or a HIGH bypass valve psi rating?

The lower the oil filter bypass valve psi rating, the quicker and easier the oil will bypass the oil filter element. That means an engine using an oil filter with a low bypass valve psi rating, will be flowing more “unfiltered” oil through the engine. With the tiny little oil filters that are in such common use today, that have modest flow rates, it is hard to run an engine easy enough to NOT cause the bypass valve to open before it is warmed-up. Tiny little oil filters have to be designed to open their bypass valves sooner in order to not starve the engine of oil, when the oil is cold and thick.

So, it is BEST to use an oil filter that is large enough to have a larger filter area which allows more flow, in order for it to be properly designed with a HIGHER bypass valve psi rating. With that far better type of oil filter, the engine can easily be run easy enough to not open the bypass valve while it is warming up. And that will enable you will minimize or perhaps even eliminate the flow of “unfiltered” oil through the engine.

If properly designed, a tiny little oil filter, usually around .35 quart capacity, should have a LOW bypass valve rating. And a larger oil filter, with around .7 quart capacity or larger, should have a HIGH bypass valve rating.

Here is one comparison example:

– Ford Motorcraft Oil Filter FL-500S, .5 quart capacity (this one is between the size of a tiny little oil filter and a large oil filter), bypass valve rating = 8 psi

– Ford Motorcraft Oil Filter FL-820S, .7 quart capacity, bypass valve rating = 16 psi

– Ford Racing Performance Parts (FRPP) # CM-6731-FL820, .7 quart capacity, bypass valve rating = 16 psi

There are numerous vehicles, but not all vehicles, that can physically accept/fit all three of these oil filters. So, in the case that you have a vehicle that can accept any of them, the BEST choice would be either of the larger FL-820 filters which have more filter area and higher flow rate, which makes them suitable for their more desirable higher 16 psi bypass valve rating.

*****

It is a total MYTH that the bypass valve only opens if the filter media is totally clogged up with debris. If the filter was totally clogged with debris, an open bypass valve would be the least of your worries, because that would mean your engine has been badly damaged or destroyed, unless you had not changed the oil filter for countless years and it had an enormous number of miles on it. If an oil filter is changed at any kind of reasonable interval, it will never get clogged with debris unless the engine is badly damaged.

OIL FILTER ENGINE MOUNTING ORIENTATION

There are three basic types of oil filter engine mounting orientations:

• The oil filter hanging down or tilted down, with the threads at the upper end of the filter

• The oil filter horizontal

• The oil filter upside down or tilted upside down, with the threads at the lower end of the filter

Most of the countless vehicles I have worked over the years, have typically had their oil filter hanging down or tilted down, with the threads at the upper end. In my experience, that is the most common oil filter engine mounting orientation. I also like this orientation the best, because it allows for better used oil draining, and it also allows you to put fresh oil into a new oil filter before you install it, if that is important in certain situations, like for a brand new engine first fire, or for an engine that has been sitting for a long time. That allows oil to reach critical engine components quicker, when the engine is fired up.

But, for people more familiar with other automotive brands that use a different oil filter orientations, their experience will be understandably different. So, it all depends on the brands you are used to dealing with.

With the oil filter in the hanging down or tilted down orientation, there is a valid concern about oil filters that have their bypass valve located at the bottom of the filter, on the opposite end from threads. In that situation, when the bypass valve opens, it could pick-up any debris that might have settled at the bottom of the oil filter, and pump that debris into the engine. For this orientation, it is best to chose and oil filter with the bypass valve located at the top, around and just under the oil filter threads. With the bypass valve located in this manner, no debris could ever be picked up when the bypass valve opens.

And if locating the bypass valve at the bottom, on the opposite end from the threads, is not bad enough, the majority of oil filter manufacturers locate the bypass valves there. Because that facilitates making a very cheap bypass valve, which allows them to cut costs on the oil filter, so they can make the filters as cheaply as possible to maximize profits. Those cheap bypass valves are commonly made of plastic these days, or thin sheet metal, or even one I came across, was made of relatively thin rubber. The poor quality of those bypass valves, is worrisome for a component that is part of the engine and controls its all important lubrication.

It is just shocking that those bypass valves are made so cheaply, just to save mere pennies on the oil filter manufacturing costs. When a component is part of your engine, buying the cheapest one you can find, is definitely not the best idea. But, oil filter companies typically only care about profits, not about making the best product.

For the horizontal oil filter engine mounting orientation, the concern about picking up debris at the bottom does not apply. So, in this orientation, having the bypass valve on the opposite end from the threads is not a real concern, if you can live with how cheaply those bypass valves are made.

However, the highest quality oil filters have their bypass valves located next to and around the threads. And by necessity, when the bypass valve is in that location, it is very well engineered and manufactured with quality metal parts. Since an oil filter with its bypass valve in this location, and with the oil filter hanging down or tilted down, cannot pick-up any debris when the bypass valve opens, it is by far the highest quality and the most desirable type of oil filter for that orientation, and for the horizontal oil filter orientation as well.

For the upside down or tilted upside down orientation, you might feel better about having the bypass valve on the end opposite to the threads, since that location could not pick-up any possible debris that might have settled. But, you are back to that worrisome super cheap and poorly made bypass valve.

I will be noting the type/location of the bypass valves as I evaluate each oil filter in this Tech Article.

IMPROVING OIL FILTRATION

A way to improve oil filtration overall, which will effectively increase your filter’s efficiency, is to add a FILTERMAG that magnetically snaps onto the outside of the filter. The magnet can pull far smaller particles out than any filter media can. And a FILTERMAG can be snapped off at oil and filter change time, and be re-used on the next oil filter forever. There is nothing to ever wear out or go bad with that magnet setup. I have used them for years myself. When you cut open an oil filter that had a FILTERMAG on it, you can find more of what I call metal dust, than you will ever see with only an oil filter by itself. So, you can see that the FILTERMAG is improving your engine’s oil filtration capability by pulling out smaller and very tiny micron sized particles.

*******

SYNTHETIC OIL FILTER FOR SYNTHETIC OIL?

And for the record, when an oil filter mentions “synthetic” it is referring to synthetic-based filter media being used, rather than conventional paper-based filter media. It does NOT mean that the oil filter is designed for synthetic oil. The FACT is, any motor oil can be used just fine with any oil filter. There is no such thing as an oil filter being designed for conventional oil or for synthetic oil. An oil filter does not know or care what type of oil is flowing through it. Major motor oil brands say that you do NOT need a special oil filter for synthetic oil.

Some people believe that you do need special oil filters for synthetic oil, because some oil filter brands have advertised that. But, that is TOTAL NONSENSE. They have put out FALSE advertising saying that, just to con people into buying their higher priced oil filters, to go with synthetic oil that is so popular today. So, don’t be gullible and fall for that scam.

*******

People are generally not aware that a lot of oil filters share a common manufacturer. So, I have gathered 35 different spin-on oil filters that are readily available at most Auto Parts Stores, to inspect them and see which ones obviously share the same manufacturer. This is information that you will likely not find anywhere else.

In the manufacturing world, it is all too common for the same product to be labeled with different Company names on them, and sold as different products, even though they are really the same exact product. This can range from motor vehicles to vitamins, and everything in between.

Oil filters are also among products produced that way. It is no secret that many Oil Filter Brands on the market, are offered by Companies that are not oil filter companies. They just contract with an oil filter manufacturer, and have their label put on the filters. In the business world, there is nothing wrong with doing that, but it can be somewhat misleading to buyers.

Below, I have separated those 35 oil filters into different individual groups that are clearly produced by the same manufacturer. With all these oil filters laid out side by side, it was easy to see that the filters in each individual group appear to be identical, or virtually identical. It appears that they came off the same assembly line, and then had different paint and labels put on.

However, appearance is not everything. There could be subtle differences internally that are not apparent by external inspection. So, that would legitimately make their function and part numbers different.

Below are the individual oil filter groups, in no particular order. The group numbers are for identification purposes only. I have also noted any differences that were seen, even though the filters otherwise appear to be identical or virtually identical. Ranking these filters for quality will come at the end of this article, after I discuss what I found when cutting them open.

GROUP 1 – Inspection indicated that these oil filters were produced by the same manufacturer:

• Bosch Premium # 3334

• Bosch Distance Plus # D3334

• Purolator Pure One # PL 12222

• Purolator Classic # L 12222

• Purolator Synthetic # PSL 12222
This filter has synthetic filter media.

• Purolator Boss # PBL12222
This filter also has synthetic filter media, and replaced the PSL 12222 just above.

• Ford Motorcraft # FL-500S
This filter is taller/longer than the rest, and its bypass valve assembly is located at the ideal location at the top near the threads.

• Ford Motorcraft # FL-820S
This filter has a larger diameter than the rest, while it is the same length as the FL-500S above. And its bypass valve assembly is also located at the ideal location at the top near the threads.

• Ford Racing Performance Parts (FRPP) # CM-6731-FL820
This filter has the same outer dimensions as the Ford Motorcraft FL-820S above. And its bypass valve assembly is also located at the ideal location at the top near the threads.

*******
GROUP 2 – Inspection indicated that these oil filters were produced by the same manufacturer:

• Mobil 1 Extended Performance # M1-113

• Royal Purple Superior Protection Extended Life # 10-48

• AC Delco Professional # PF48

• K&N Performance Gold # HP-1017

• Amsoil # EA15K50

*******
GROUP 3 – Inspection indicated that these oil filters were produced by the same manufacturer:

• Wix # 51348, This filter has its bypass valve assembly located at the ideal location at the top near the threads.

• Mopar # MO-409, This filter also has its bypass valve assembly located at the ideal location at the top near the threads.

*******
GROUP 4 – Inspection indicated that these oil filters were produced by the same manufacturer:

• AC Delco Professional # PF46E

• STP # S10060

*******
GROUP 5 – Inspection indicated that these oil filters were produced by the same manufacturer:

• Fram Tough Guard # TG3387A

• Fram Extra Guard # PH10060

• Fram Ultra # XG10060

• Honda # 15400-PLM-A02

• Subaru # 15208AA15A

*******

Group 6 – There was only one oil filter here:

• Nissan # 15208-65FOE

*******

Group 7 – There was only one filter here:

• Hyundai # 26300 35504

*******
Group 8 – There was only one filter here:

• Toyota # 90915-YZZD1

*******
Group 9 – There was only one filter here:

• Lamborghini UFI # 07M115561B (listed as Lamborghini’s OEM oil filter for their Aventador, Murcielago and Diablo models)

*******
Group 10 – There was only one filter here:

• Baldwin # B7422

*******
Group 11 – There was only one filter here:

• Champion # COS10575

*******

I cut open all 35 oil filters, to get a more in-depth look at the quality of the design and construction, that could not be seen from just looking at the outside. Here is what I found:

• Purolator Classic # L 12222
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.77″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .014″
This filter holds about .35 of a quart of oil (read as 35 hundredths of a quart of oil).
Its filter media provides a fairly reasonable 96 square inches of filtering surface area. This oil filter claims to be 97.5% efficient at filtering 20 micron sized particles. This “Bottom” positioned oil filter from Purolator’s line-up, is well made with quality parts. Newer boxes call this a 5,000 mile oil filter. The filter media is glued well to its end caps, to ensure that all the dirty oil goes through the filter media. But its downside, is that one of its key design features is not good. Its inexpensive bypass valve assembly is located at the bottom of the filter to cut costs, where any debris in the bottom of the filter could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens. The bypass opens semi-regularly during cold start-up and during warm-up, if the engine is run too hard before the oil is up to normal operating temperature. The fact is, the filter is highly restrictive to sufficient oil flow, when the oil is cold and thick, if the engine is run too hard during that time. So, oil filter bypass valves are designed to open under cold oil and/or aggressive cold oil driving conditions, in order to prevent oil starvation to the engine. Once the oil warms up and thins out, the bypass valve will typically not be open.

.
• Purolator Pure One # PL12222
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.77″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .015″
This filter holds about .35 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides a respectable 109 square inches of filtering surface area.
This oil filter claims to be 99.9% efficient at filtering 20 micron sized particles.
This “Middle” positioned oil filter from Purolator’s line-up, is well made with quality parts. Newer boxes call this a 10,000 mile oil filter. The filter media is glued well to its end caps, to ensure that all the dirty oil goes through the filter media. But its downside, is that one of its key design features is not good. Its inexpensive bypass valve assembly is located at the bottom of the filter to cut costs, where any debris in the bottom of the filter could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens. The bypass opens semi-regularly during cold start-up and during warm-up, if the engine is run too hard before the oil is up to normal operating temperature. The fact is, the filter is highly restrictive to sufficient oil flow, when the oil is cold and thick, if the engine is run too hard during that time. So, oil filter bypass valves are designed to open under cold oil and/or aggressive cold oil driving conditions, in order to prevent oil starvation to the engine. Once the oil warms up and thins out, the bypass valve will typically not be open.

.
• Purolator Synthetic # PSL 12222
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.77″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .016″
This filter holds about .35 of a quart of oil.
This filter’s synthetic filter media provides a respectable 106 square inches of filtering surface area. This oil filter claims to be 99% efficient at filtering 25 microns sized particles. It is probably very interesting to some, that this “Top of the Line” oil filter from Purolator’s line-up, has its synthetic filter media’s claimed efficiency rating for larger 25 micron sized particles, as compared to their cheaper non-synthetic media filters, that have their filter media efficiency ratings for smaller 20 micron sized particles. The reason for this, is that synthetic media typically can hold more debris, which allows for longer change intervals, even if they don’t filter smaller sized particles than paper-based filter media. As you can see, synthetic oil filter media is not necessarily the “be all, and end all”, in automotive oil filters. The box falsely claims that this synthetic media is required for synthetic oil. It says that only to scam people into spending more money on their most expensive oil filter. The truth is any type of oil can be used with any type of oil filter. Newer boxes call this a 15,000 mile oil filter, and this filter is well made with quality parts. The filter media is glued well to its end caps, to ensure that all the dirty oil goes through the filter media. And it has a plastic screen on the inside surface of the filter media. But its downside, is that one of its key design features is not good. Its inexpensive bypass valve assembly is located at the bottom of the filter to cut costs, where any debris in the bottom of the filter could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens. The bypass opens semi-regularly during cold start-up and during warm-up, if the engine is run too hard before the oil is up to normal operating temperature. The fact is, the filter is highly restrictive to sufficient oil flow, when the oil is cold and thick, if the engine is run too hard during that time. So, oil filter bypass valves are designed to open under cold oil and/or aggressive cold oil driving conditions, in order to prevent oil starvation to the engine. Once the oil warms up and thins out, the bypass valve will typically not be open.

.
• Purolator Boss # PBL 12222
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.77″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .020″
This filter holds about .35 quart of oil.
Its synthetic filter media provides a respectable 105 square inches of filtering surface area. This filter is virtually identical to, and replaces the Purolator Synthetic #PSL 12222 just above. This box corrects the false statement made on the Purolator Synthetic box, and truthfully says that any type of oil can be used with any type of oil filter. Purolator calls this a 15,000 mile oil filter. This “Top of the Line” oil filter from Purolator’s line-up, is well made with quality parts. The filter media is glued well to its end caps, to ensure that all the dirty oil goes through the filter media. And it has a plastic screen on the inside surface of the filter media. But its downside, is that one of its key design features is not good. Its inexpensive bypass valve assembly is located at the bottom of the filter to cut costs, where any debris in the bottom of the filter could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens. The bypass opens semi-regularly during cold start-up and during warm-up, if the engine is run too hard before the oil is up to normal operating temperature. The fact is, the filter is highly restrictive to sufficient oil flow, when the oil is cold and thick, if the engine is run too hard during that time. So, oil filter bypass valves are designed to open under cold oil and/or aggressive cold oil driving conditions, in order to prevent oil starvation to the engine. Once the oil warms up and thins out, the bypass valve will typically not be open.

• Bosch Premium # 3334
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.75″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .018″
This filter holds about .35 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides a respectable 109 square inches of filtering surface area.
This oil filter is well made with quality parts. The filter media is glued well to its end caps, to ensure that all the dirty oil goes through the filter media. But its downside, is that one of its key design features is not good. Its inexpensive bypass valve assembly is located at the bottom of the filter to cut costs, where any debris in the bottom of the filter could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens. The bypass opens semi-regularly during cold start-up and during warm-up, if the engine is run too hard before the oil is up to normal operating temperature. The fact is, the filter is highly restrictive to sufficient oil flow, when the oil is cold and thick, if the engine is run too hard during that time. So, oil filter bypass valves are designed to open under cold oil and/or aggressive cold oil driving conditions, in order to prevent oil starvation to the engine. Once the oil warms up and thins out, the bypass valve will typically not be open.

.
• Bosch Distance Plus # D 3334
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.75″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .018″
This filter holds about .35 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides fairly reasonable 100 square inches of filtering surface area.
This oil filter is well made with quality parts. The filter media is glued well to its end caps, to ensure that all the dirty oil goes through the filter media. But its downside, is that one of its key design features is not good. Its inexpensive bypass valve assembly is located at the bottom of the filter to cut costs, where any debris in the bottom of the filter could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens. The bypass opens semi-regularly during cold start-up and during warm-up, if the engine is run too hard before the oil is up to normal operating temperature. The fact is, the filter is highly restrictive to sufficient oil flow, when the oil is cold and thick, if the engine is run too hard during that time. So, oil filter bypass valves are designed to open under cold oil and/or aggressive cold oil driving conditions, in order to prevent oil starvation to the engine. Once the oil warms up and thins out, the bypass valve will typically not be open.
.

• Ford Racing Performance Parts (FRPP) # CM-6731-FL820
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.91″, ID = 2.47″
Bypass valve rating = 16 psi
Max Flow Rate = 11-13 GPM (gallons per minute)
Outer casing wall thickness = .022″, which is 83% thicker than the standard Ford Motorcraft FL-820S just below. That provides much better burst strength protection. This filter has the same outer dimensions as the standard Ford Motorcraft FL-820S. So, it holds the same impressive .7 of a quart of oil (read as 7 tenths of a quart of oil) as the standard FL-820S. This FRPP oil filter media provides an EXTREMELY impressive 250 square inches of filtering surface area, which is 25% more than the standard Ford Motorcraft FL-820S just below.

That extra filtering surface area means less restriction to oil flowing through the filter, which in turn means less pressure drop going through the filter. So, more pressure on the outlet side of the filter, means more oil flow can be pushed through the engine. Flow is lubrication, and of course that is very important in racing conditions. Ultimately, an engine’s bearing clearances determine how just how much oil can flow through it at a given pressure. But, the extra pressure and flow coming from a less restrictive oil filter, helps ensure that the engine is provided as much oil as the oiling system is capable of providing.

And a lower restriction oil filter can also benefit daily driver vehicles as well. Here’s why. The lower the filter restriction, the less the bypass valve will open during cold start-up and during warm-up driving. That means less unfiltered oil flowing through the engine. So, if you are looking for the best oil filter for your daily driver, or your weekend Hotrod that doesn’t actually go to the track, this oil filter is well worth considering.

This oil filter is extremely well made with quality parts. Its filter media is glued well to its end caps. And it has a far superior, more costly, metal bypass valve assembly design, which is located at the top just under the threads, which prevents any debris in the bottom of the filter from entering the engine when the bypass opens. In addition to that, its bypass valve assembly is very well sealed at its installation joint location, so that dirty oil cannot make its way past the joint. It also has a thicker outer casing wall than a standard oil filter, as indicated above. And it also has a higher quality rubber mounting seal. All in all, the design quality, the specs, the features, the capabilities, and the construction quality, justify this being called a Racing Oil Filter.

CONCLUSION:
This Top Tier oil filter is the “BEST of the BEST” designed and constructed Automotive spin-on oil filter I have seen. I will now be using this oil filter on some of my own vehicles. And at the beginning of 2020, it cost only $17.00 at Summit Racing Equipment, which makes it one of the very best “cost vs quality” values around. Here are some oil filters that this Ford Racing Performance Parts (FRPP) # CM-6731-FL820 oil filter can directly replace:

Ford Motorcraft # FL-500S, depending on the particular vehicle’s fit/clearance

Ford Motorcraft # FL-820S

Wix # 51372

Purolator # L24651

Fram # PH2

AC Delco # PF1250

Champ # PH820

.
• Ford Motorcraft # FL-820S
Made in the U.S.A.
Designed, Engineered and recommended by Ford Motor Company
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.85″, ID = 2.45″
Bypass valve rating = 16 psi
Max Flow Rate = 11-13 GPM
Outer casing wall thickness = .012″
This filter holds an impressive .7 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides a VERY impressive 200 square inches of filtering surface area.
This filter is very well made with quality parts. Its filter media is glued well to its end caps. And is has a far superior, more costly, metal bypass valve assembly design, which is located at the top just under the threads, which prevents any debris in the bottom of the filter from entering the engine when the bypass opens. In addition to that, its bypass valve assembly is very well sealed at its installation joint location, so that dirty oil cannot make its way past the joint. Overall, this Top Tier filter is the BEST designed and constructed Automotive spin-on oil filter I have seen.

.
• Ford Motorcraft # FL-500S
Made in the U.S.A.
Designed, Engineered and recommended by Ford Motor Company
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.7″, ID = 2.38″
Bypass valve rating = 8 psi
Max Flow Rate = 10-12 GPM
Outer casing wall thickness = .014″
This filter holds a fairly impressive .5 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides a fairly impressive 124 square inches of filtering surface area.
This filter is very well made with quality parts. Its filter media is glued well to its end caps. And is has a far superior, more costly, metal bypass valve assembly design, which is located at the top just under the threads, which prevents any debris in the bottom of the filter from entering the engine when the bypass opens. In addition to that, its bypass valve assembly is very well sealed at its installation joint location, so that dirty oil cannot make its way past the joint. Overall, this Top Tier filter, like the FL-820S just above, is the BEST designed and constructed Automotive spin-on oil filter I have seen. According to one of the top High Performance and Racing On-Line Automotive Parts Catalogs, here are some of the engines that accept this oil filter:
Many Ford, Lincoln, Mercury
Cadillac 2.0L, 2.8L, 3.6L, 6.2L
Chevrolet/GM 2.4L, 2.5L, 3.0L, 3.6L, 4.3L, 5.3L, 6.2L
Jeep 3.7L, 4.7L, 5.7L
Dodge/Ram 3.7L, 4.7L, 5.7L
Buick 2.4L, 3.6L
Mazda 3.0L

.
• Wix # 51348 (Older Standard Version)
Made in the U.S.A.
Outer casing wall thickness = .013″
This filter holds about .36 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides a respectable 108 square inches of filtering surface area.
This oil filter is made with quality parts. Its filter media is glued well to its end caps. And its bypass valve is also located at the top of the filter, where no debris that may be in the bottom of the filter could enter the engine when the bypass opens. The only problem here, is that its more costly and far better bypass valve assembly, is a separate component that is just stacked up with other metal components with no sealing at all. So, since it is not specifically sealed from dirty oil, some could possibly get past the bypass valve assembly’s joint, allowing some unfiltered oil to reach the engine.
.

• WIX# 51348 (Newer current 2020 Standard Version, with no change to the part number.)
Made in the U.S.A.
Outer casing wall thickness = .013″
This filter holds about .36 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides a respectable 112 square inches of filtering surface area. This newer version’s filter media was NOT glued well to its end caps at all locations. Its bypass valve is located at the top of the filter, where no debris that may be in the bottom of the filter could enter the engine when the bypass opens. The only problem here, is that its more costly and far better bypass valve assembly, is a separate component that is just stacked up with other metal components with no sealing at all. So, since it is not specifically sealed from dirty oil, some could possibly get past the bypass valve assembly’s joint, allowing some unfiltered oil to reach the engine.

This filter was almost identical to the older version, except this one has black paint on the outer casing, and its construction quality control was not quite as good as the older version. In addition to that, I looked at several other Standard WIX oil filters with different part numbers, and some had the bypass valve at the proper upper location, while others had a cheaper bypass valve assembly at the undesirable bottom location. That makes it impossible to know which oil filter is good, and which is NOT so good, unless you look down inside the center hole. The good ones will have a clearly visible coil spring immediately below the mounting threads. The NOT so good ones will have the bypass valve assembly clearly located at the very bottom of the hole. It is not entirely clear why the same line of Standard oil filters would have two different types of bypass valves. But, I suspect that the Company is slowly cheapening their oil filters to cut costs, and I saw a mixture of older and newer versions on the shelf. This was disappointing to see.
.

• WIX # 51348″XP” (Newer current 2020 Premium Version with synthetic filter media and with “XP” included in the part number. It costs 1/3 more than the Standard version of the same part number.)
Made in the U.S.A.
Outer casing wall thickness = .014″
This filter holds about .36 of a quart of oil.
Its synthetic filter media provides a fairly reasonable 92 square inches of filtering surface area. This premium version’s filter media was NOT 100% glued well to its end caps at all locations. And this premium filter had a cheap plastic bypass valve assembly, located at the bottom of the filter, where debris could enter the engine every time the bypass valve opens. I looked at several other premium “XP” WIX oil filters with different part numbers, and like I found with the Standard WIX oil filters, some had the bypass valve at the proper upper location, while others had a cheaper bypass valve assembly at the undesirable bottom location. That makes it impossible to know which oil filter is good, and which is NOT so good, unless you look down inside the center hole. The good ones will have a clearly visible coil spring immediately below the mounting threads. The NOT so good ones will have the bypass valve assembly clearly located at the very bottom of the hole. It is not entirely clear why the same line of Premium oil filters would have two different types of bypass valves. But, I suspect that the Company is slowly cheapening their oil filters to cut costs, and I saw a mixture of older and newer versions on the shelf. This was disappointing to see..

• Mopar # MO-409
Made in the U.S.A.
Outer casing wall thickness = .013″
This filter holds about .36 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides a respectable 117 square inches of filtering surface area.
This oil filter is made with quality parts. Its filter media is glued well to its end caps. And its bypass valve is also located at the top of the filter, where no debris that may be in the bottom of the filter could enter the engine when the bypass opens. The only problem here, is that its more costly and far better bypass valve assembly, is a separate component that is just stacked up with other metal components with no sealing at all. So, since it is not specifically sealed from dirty oil, some could possibly get past the bypass valve assembly’s joint, allowing some unfiltered oil to reach the engine.

.
• AC Delco Professional # PF46E
Made in the U.S.A.
Outer casing wall thickness = .015″
This filter holds about .35 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides an unimpressive 84 square inches of filtering surface area.
This oil filter has an extremely cheaply made plastic center tube which is really just a spacer frame, with large open rectangular grid areas of unsupported filter media. This is another low for cheapening oil filters. I have seen this now in many AC Delco oil filters, which is why I stopped using them in GM vehicles. All other oil filters besides the STP # S 10060 just below, that were evaluated in this Tech Article, had good quality perforated steel center tubes which provide good media support. Remember, the oil flow is trying to push the filter media into the center hole of the oil filter. So, proper filter media support is important. The filter media end caps are a fibrous material, NOT metal as is normally used in quality oil filters. But, for what it’s worth, the filter media did appear to be well glued to those end caps. However, the end cap is NOT sealed at the bottom. It just sits on a metal spring plate, so dirty oil could possibly get past that joint and into the engine without being filtered. This filter does NOT have a mechanical bypass valve. For bypassing, it is counting on oil being forced past the inside surface of the rubber anti-drain back valve flap at the top of the filter, as well as possibly getting past the unsealed element at the bottom. Overall, this is among the LOWEST quality designed and constructed oil filters I have seen.

.
• STP # S 10060
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.75″, ID = 2.38″
Outer casing wall thickness = .014″
This filter holds about .35 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides an unimpressive 84 square inches of filtering surface area.
This oil filter has an extremely cheaply made plastic center tube which is really just a spacer frame, with large open rectangular grid areas of unsupported filter media. This is another low for cheapening oil filters. All other oil filters besides the AC Delco Professional # PF46E just above, that were evaluated in this Tech Article, had good quality perforated steel center tubes which provide good media support. Remember, the oil flow is trying to push the filter media into the center hole of the oil filter. So, proper filter media support is important. The filter media end caps are a fibrous material, NOT metal as is normally used in quality oil filters. But, for what it’s worth, the filter media did appear to be well glued to those end caps. However, the end cap is NOT sealed at the bottom. It just sits on a metal spring plate, so dirty oil could possibly get past that joint and into the engine without being filtered. This filter does NOT have a mechanical bypass valve. For bypassing, it is counting on oil being forced past the inside surface of the loose fitting rubber anti-drain back valve flap at the top of the filter, as well as possibly getting past the unsealed element at the bottom. Overall, this is among the LOWEST quality designed and constructed oil filters I have seen.

.
• Royal Purple Superior Protection Extended Life # 10-48 (Older Version)
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.75″, ID = 2.38″
Outer casing wall thickness = .018″
This filter holds about .37 of a quart of oil.
Its synthetic filter media provides a rather small 59 square inches of filtering surface area.
This oil filter is made well with quality parts. Its filter media was glued well to its end caps. But, its downside, is also that one of its key design features is not good. Its inexpensive bypass valve assembly is located at the bottom of the filter, where debris could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens.
.

• Royal Purple Superior Protection Extended Life # 10-47 (Newer Current Version in 2020. A running change was made without changing the part number.)
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting hole/threads are smaller than used on the Royal Purple # 10-48 just above, because it fits a different vehicle.
Mounting seal OD = 2.75″, ID = 2.38″
Outer casing wall thickness = .021″
This filter holds about .37 of a quart of oil.
Its synthetic filter media provides a modest 69 square inches of filtering surface area.
Its filter media was NOT well glued to its end caps at all locations. And Royal Purple has cheapened the design of this filter to cut costs and maximize profits, to the point that this oil filter no longer has even the basic features to be an acceptable oil filter. It has NO BYPASS valve of any kind, which means all oil will have to pass through the filter element no matter what the conditions may be.

A bypass valve is a critical so that under cold start-up conditions when the cold thick oil is highly restricted passing through the filter media, the bypass valve can open to allow sufficient oil flow to critical engine components. The colder the outside temperature, the higher the viscosity rating of the oil being used, and the more aggressive the engine is run during warm-up, the more essential a bypass valve is. So, anyone using this oil filter could easily end up with increased engine wear or actual engine damage, just because they used this oil filter. The “Bean Counters” at Royal Purple should be ashamed of themselves. They don’t care at all about providing a quality product to their customers. They only care about making the most money they can. Buyer beware!!! This oil filter is so unacceptable that I had to create a new grading category below.

I was so shocked by what I found with this filter, that I clicked on a Royal Purple oil filter link on the Internet, to see what I could find out. And I found a cutaway picture of one of their filters that showed an ideal bypass valve located at the top of the filter, just under the threads, where it should be. This is where the Ford, Wix and Mopar oil filters have their bypass valves. So, I thought at first, this was blatant false advertising. So, I went to two different Auto Parts Stores to look at a variety of Royal Purple oil filters. I looked at somewhere around ten different Royal Purple oil filter part numbers, and I only found “ONE” that actually had that bypass valve that they showed on their website. Every other Royal Purple oil filter I looked at, HAD NO BYPASS VALVE AT ALL, just like the one I evaluated here. So, I’ll repeat, BUYER BEWARE!!!

It is easy to tell if you have an acceptably designed oil filter or not, by simply looking down the center hole of the filter, though you may need a flashlight to see down inside well enough. If it has the top located bypass valve they showed in their cutaway picture, a clearly visible coil spring can be seen just immediately below the mounting threads. If it has their older style bypass valve located at the bottom, you will be able to clearly see the head of the bypass valve plunger head, at the very bottom of the hole. If you cannot see either type of bypass valve, you should think long and hard about buying their totally unacceptable new design. We can speak with our money and show them that they cannot take advantage of their customers, because we will simply buy a better product on the shelf right next to theirs.
.

• Mobil 1 Extended Performance # M1-113 (Older Version)
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.75″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .020″
This filter holds about .37 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides a fairly reasonable 99 square inches of filtering surface area. This oil filter is made well with quality parts. Its filter media was glued well to its end caps. But, its downside, is also that one of its key design features is not good. Its inexpensive bypass valve assembly is located at the bottom of the filter, where debris could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens.
.
• Mobil 1 Extended Performance # M1-113A (Newer Current Version in 2020. A running change was made, and they changed the part number to reflect that by adding an “A”)
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.75″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .020″
This filter holds about .37 of a quart of oil.
This filter claims to be 99%+ efficient for particles larger than 30 microns, which is NOTHING to brag about. Good oil filters claim that kind of efficiency for particle sizes in the 20 to 25 micron size range. So, they are actually saying their filter does not filter very well. Its filter media provides a fairly reasonable 111 square inches of filtering surface area. Its filter media was glued well to its end caps, but the gluing was sloppy and was smeared all around.

They also cheapened the design of this filter, compared to the previous version, and now the media bottom end plate is not specifically sealed from unfiltered oil like many other oil filters are. That end plate is just pushed up against the bottom spring plate. And one of its key design features has also been made worse. Now the bottom spring plate has an inexpensive cheap plastic bypass valve assembly located in it. And at that bottom location, debris could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens. It was disappointing to see this oil filter now become a somewhat low quality oil filter.

You can no longer just grab any oil filter off the shelf, and think everything is fine. Many oil filters have now been cheapened to the point, that it is in your best interest to consider which filters are good and which are not, before you buy one. You can only find that information here in my Blog, because no one else performs detailed evaluations and comparisons like I do here.

.
• K&N Performance Gold # HP-1017 (Older Version)
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.75″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .018″
This filter holds about .37 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides a fairly reasonable 93 square inches of filtering surface area. This oil filter is made well with quality parts. Its filter media was glued well to its end caps. But, its downside, is also that one of its key design features is not good. Its inexpensive bypass valve assembly is located at the bottom of the filter, where debris could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens.
.

• K&N Performance Gold # HP-1017 (Newer Current Version in 2020. A running change was made without changing the part number.)
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.75″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .018″
This filter holds about .37 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides a fairly reasonable 111 square inches of filtering surface area. Its filter media was NOT well glued to its end caps at all locations. And the gluing was sloppy and was smeared all around.

They also cheapened the design of this filter, compared to the previous version, and now the media bottom end plate is not specifically sealed from unfiltered oil like many other oil filters are. That end plate is just pushed up against the bottom spring plate. And one of its key design features has also been made worse. Now the bottom spring plate has an inexpensive cheap plastic bypass valve assembly located in it. And at that bottom location, debris could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens. It was disappointing to see this oil filter now become a somewhat low quality oil filter.

You can no longer just grab any oil filter off the shelf, and think everything is fine. Many oil filters have now been cheapened to the point, that it is in your best interest to consider which filters are good and which are not, before you buy one. You can only find that information here in my Blog, because no one else performs detailed evaluations and comparisons like I do here.
.

• K&N HP-6002 High Performance Specialty oil filter. This type of oil filter is often called a “2 quart” oil filter, but you will see that it is not actually that large.
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting seal OD = 3.47″, ID = 3.09″
Outer casing wall thickness = .018″
This filter holds about 1.4 quarts of oil. While that is not 2 quarts, it is nearly 4 times as much at the normal K&N oil filters just above. Its media was well glued to its end caps. This extra-large diameter and extra-long HP-6002 oil filter, was design for all-out maximum oil flow, that is desirable in hardcore racing engines. So, it does not have an anti-drain back valve, and it has a “MASSIVE” 505 square inches of filtering surface area. As a result, it has the lowest restriction and smallest pressure drop, of most any oil filter you will find. Therefore, it does NOT need a bypass valve. And it is more than capable of flowing all the oil that can be generated by High Volume, High Pressure Racing oil pumps. Engines that would typically use this oil filter, are racing engines that use either an oil accumulator setup to pressurize the engine with oil before it is started. Or else the engine is primed with pressurized oil before it is started.

This oil filter is included in this Oil Filter Tech Article for information purposes only, for those who might be interested. And since it is not a normal oil filter to be used by ordinary vehicles, it will not be graded here, since comparing it to normal oil filters for a grade, would be a nonsense apples to oranges comparison. For a grade to make any sense, it would have to be compared to similar oil filters, such as those it cross references to, such as:

WIX 51794

Purolator L40084

Fram PH373

.

• Amsoil # EA15K50
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.75″, ID = 2.38″
Outer casing wall thickness = .018″
This filter holds about .38 of a quart of oil.
Amsoil claims this filter’s synthetic media is 99% efficient at 20 microns. But, its filter media provides only a disappointing 69 square inches of filtering surface area. The filter media was glued well to the end caps. But, the gluing was sloppy and smeared around in many places. The media bottom end plate is not specifically sealed from unfiltered oil like many other oil filters are. That end plate is just pushed up against the bottom spring plate. And one of its key design features is also not good. That bottom spring plate has an inexpensive cheap plastic bypass valve assembly located in it. And at that bottom location, debris could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens.

It was disappointing to see a somewhat low quality oil filter from Amsoil. They offer probably the best motor oil on the market. So, I also expected much better from their oil filters. You can no longer just grab any oil filter off the shelf, and think everything is fine. Many oil filters have now been cheapened to the point, that it is in your best interest to consider which filters are good and which are not, before you buy one. You can only find that information here in my Blog, because no one else performs detailed evaluations and comparisons like I do here.

.
• AC Delco Professional # PF48
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.75″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .014″
This filter holds about .35 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides a fairly reasonable 97 square inches of filtering surface area. This oil filter is made somewhat well with quality parts. However, its filter media was NOT well glued to its end caps in all areas. And one of its key design features is not good. Its inexpensive bypass valve is located at the bottom of the filter, where debris could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens.

.
• Fram Tough Guard #TG3387A
Made in the U.S.A.
Outer casing wall thickness = .014″
This filter holds about .35 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides a respectable 110 square inches of filtering surface area. This oil filter claims to be 99% efficient at filtering particles larger than 20 microns. But, its filter media end caps are unbelievably cheap “CARDBOARD”, NOT metal as is normally used in quality oil filters. Cardboard has no business being inside any engine component. On top of that, the media had some areas that were NOT well glued to those end caps.. If all that is not bad enough, the filter media was NOT sealed at the bottom. It just sits on a metal spring plate, so dirty oil could possibly get past that joint and into the engine without being filtered. This filter does NOT have a mechanical bypass valve. For bypassing, it is counting on oil being forced past the inside surface of the rubber anti-drain back valve flap at the top of the filter, as well as possibly getting past the unsealed bottom. Overall, this is among the LOWEST quality designed and constructed oil filters I have seen.

• Fram Extra Guard # PH10060
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.7″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .014″
This filter holds about .35 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides fairly reasonable 96 square inches of filtering surface area. This oil filter claims to be 95% efficient at filtering particles larger than 20 microns. But, its filter media end caps are unbelievably cheap “CARDBOARD”, NOT metal as is normally used in quality oil filters. Cardboard has no business being inside any engine component. On top of that, the media had some areas that were NOT well glued to those end caps. And to add insult to injury, this filter has a cheap plastic bypass valve assembly, located at the bottom of the filter, where debris could enter the engine every time the bypass valve opens. If all that is not bad enough, the filter media was NOT sealed at the bottom. It just sits on a metal spring plate, so dirty oil could possibly get past that joint and into the engine without being filtered. Overall, this is among the LOWEST quality designed and constructed oil filters I have seen.

.
• Fram Ultra # XG10060
Made in the U.S.A.
Mounting thread is Metric 22mm x 1.5
Mounting seal OD = 2.7″, ID = 2.4″
Outer casing wall thickness = .013″
This filter holds about .35 of a quart of oil.
Its synthetic filter media provides an unimpressive 82 square inches of filtering surface area. This oil filter claims to be 99% efficient at filtering particles larger than 20 microns. It was only somewhat well made. Its filter media was well glued to its metal end plates. But, it also had the same cheap bottom mounted plastic bypass valve assembly as the Fram Extra Guard oil filter just above, which can allow debris to enter the engine every time the bypass valve opens.

.
• Honda # 15400-PLM-A02
Made in the U.S.A.
Outer casing wall thickness = .016″
This filter holds about .3 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides fairly reasonable 101 square inches of filtering surface area.
According to the Honda Dealer who sold this oil filter, it fits all their models except the S2000. This filter didn’t even come in a box, it only had plastic wrap on it. Its filter media end caps are unbelievably cheap “CARDBOARD”, NOT metal as is normally used in quality oil filters. Cardboard has no business being inside any engine component. On top of that, the media had some areas that were NOT well glued to those end caps. And to add insult to injury, this filter has a cheap plastic bypass valve assembly, located at the bottom of the filter, where debris could enter the engine every time the bypass valve opens. If all that is not bad enough, the filter media was NOT sealed at the bottom. It just sits on a metal spring plate, so dirty oil could possibly get past that joint and into the engine without being filtered. Other than having a slightly smaller diameter, this filter is virtually identical to a Fram Extra Guard filter, but with Honda blue paint and label on it. Overall, this is among the LOWEST quality designed and constructed oil filters I have seen.
Honda Motor Company was once respected for its excellent Engineering and Manufacturing. But, this oil filter shows how far it has gone in the name of cost cutting and profit maximizing. This filter cost $12.00 at the Honda Dealer, but you could buy a different brand of oil filter that is FAR BETTER, for half the price.

.
• Subaru # 15208AA15A
Made in the U.S.A.
Outer casing wall thickness = .016″
This filter holds about .3 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides fairly reasonable 101 square inches of filtering surface area.
Other than having a noticeably stiffer bypass valve assembly spring, this filter is identical to the Honda filter just above, even down to the paint. Like the Honda filter, this filter also didn’t even come in a box, it only had plastic wrap on it. Its filter media end caps are unbelievably cheap “CARDBOARD”, NOT metal as is normally used in quality oil filters. Cardboard has no business being inside any engine component. On top of that, the media had some areas that were NOT well glued to those end caps. And to add insult to injury, this filter has a cheap plastic bypass valve assembly, located at the bottom of the filter, where debris could enter the engine every time the bypass valve opens. If all that is not bad enough, the filter media was NOT sealed at the bottom. It just sits on a metal spring plate, so dirty oil could possibly get past that joint and into the engine without being filtered. Other than having a slightly smaller diameter, this filter is virtually identical to a Fram Extra Guard filter, but with blue paint and a Subaru label on it. Overall, this is among the LOWEST quality designed and constructed oil filters I have seen.

.
• Nissan # 15208-65FOE
Made in Mexico.
Outer casing wall thickness = .016″
This filter holds only about .24 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides only a disappointing 66 square inches of filtering surface area. This oil filter is made well with quality parts. Its filter media was glued well to its end caps. But, its downside, is also that one of its key design features is not good. Its inexpensive bypass valve assembly is located at the bottom of the filter, where debris could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens.

.
• Hyundai # 26300 35504
Made in Korea.
Outer casing wall thickness = .021″
This filter holds only about .33 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides an impressive 158 square inches of filtering surface area, for such a tiny filter. And as a result, the filter media pleats are packed in so tightly together, that they have little to no separation for oil to flow through well. And they have no ridges crimped into them to help separate them like most quality filters have. Therefore, pleats are so squeezed together, that they form what you could call double thick “blades”, rather than separated “V” shapes. All that will result in increased and unwanted restriction to flow. The filter media was not well glued to its ends in some areas. It also has a key design feature that is not good. Its inexpensive bypass valve assembly is located at the bottom of the filter, where debris could be picked up and pumped through the engine every time the bypass opens. Overall, this is among the LOWEST quality designed and constructed oil filters I have seen.

.
• Toyota # 90915-YZZD1
Made in Thailand.
Outer casing wall thickness = .016″
This filter holds only about .36 of a quart of oil.
Its filter media provides an impressive 160 square inches of filtering surface area, for such a small filter. But, the filter media did NOT have any end plates at all. They just glued the ends of the pleats together, to make this filter as cheap as they possibly could. Therefore, the pleats are so squeezed together, that they form what you could call double thick “blades”, rather than separated “V” shapes. All that will result in increased and unwanted restriction to flow. This filter does have a proper perforated metal center tube, but it is not sealed to the media anywhere. So, that allows the possibility of dirty oil getting past and into the engine without being filtered. It also has a key design feature that is not good. It has a cheap plastic bypass valve assembly located at the bottom of the filter, where debris could be picked up and pumped through the engine every ti