Test Data on 9 Different Break-In Oils - Chevelle Tech
Performance Our High Performance area

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 11 (permalink) Old Apr 20th, 15, 12:31 AM
540 RAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Test Data on 9 Different Break-In Oils

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 The use of zinc as the primary extreme pressure anti-wear component is outdated technology.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 90,000 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 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. To see how all 9 Break-In Oils rank in the overall Ranking List with over 150 different oils, go to the Oil Test Data Blog link below.

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 in the overall RankingLlist of over 150 different oils, it also ended up in next to last place.

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 had test results over 90,000 psi, which put them all in the “OUTSTANDING WEAR PROTECTION” category.


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

Continued below:
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 11 (permalink) Old Apr 20th, 15, 12:32 AM
540 RAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Test Data on 9 Different Break-In Oils

Continued here:

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.

This write-up is essentially a stand-alone article, that should not require much question answering. I will not have the opportunity to follow along with the discussion that comes out of this. But, the answers to any questions that may still come up, can generally be found in link below.

540 RAT

Mechanical Engineer

U.S. Patent Holder

Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)

For more information regarding Motor Oil Tech FACTS, NOT MYTHS, go to the link below:

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
post #3 of 11 (permalink) Old Apr 20th, 15, 1:35 AM
Team Member
Bob
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gainesville/ERA, TX
Posts: 513
Send a message via AIM to 540 Olds
Re: Test Data on 9 Different Break-In Oils

I recently(one in March and one yesterday) started two freshly rebuilt Buick six-banger turbo engines. One had a hydraulic flat tappet and the other a hyd roller. Neither of these engines run very high spring pressures (relative to BB).

The flat tappet hyd was a Comp Cams 212/212 duration/ .460 lift with new Comp lifters. This cam was in another engine built 5 years ago, but never been started or put in the car, so we swapped it into one of our builds; not a killer cam.

I coated the cam with the "stuff" Comp sends and then put a blob on the bottom of each lifter. As 540Rat suggested, I always prime an engine and look for good pressure and all rockers dripping before an install.

I used Chevron Supreme 5W-30 in both engines per 540Rat suggestion in another thread; I think it cost $3.50/quart. Both engines started right up and I ran the FT hydraulic at 2-2500rpm for about 25 minutes...I have 150 miles on the engine now and it's fine; no wiped lobes, runs well.

Hyd roller running fine except for the damn slight tick of the Morel lifters. I pre-loaded them 3/4 turn. Obviously did not do 20 minute high-idle for the roller cam.

But both engines are doing fine so far; only have 150 miles on the FT, but I figure if it was gonna go bad it would have by now; once again I realize these engines do not have spring pressures like a large FT hyd BB cam, but no specail "break-in" oil was used.

Both engines have out of the box SpeedPro pre-cut rings; nothing fancy. I will check for oil usage and report back while on the HR Power Tour in June.

We'll be starting another fresh one in a few weeks with same oil..another hyd roller.

Bob
540 Olds is offline  
 
post #4 of 11 (permalink) Old Apr 20th, 15, 1:51 AM
Team Member
Broc
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Napa, CA
Posts: 1,307
Cool Re: Test Data on 9 Different Break-In Oils

I've had good luck with Chevron products going on 40 years now. Not a fan boy - just what I've observed.

Delo was first oil in regular service to post 1M miles in a Cummins diesel, followed a few months later by Delvac in a Detroit, IIRC. I sort of respect chemistry that can do that

Chevron Supreme has been in a lot of friends motors when they first fire. Partly because we get it pretty easily from our fleet suppliers. None of them has lost a cam/lifters so far - even some pretty hairy BB's in race only prep with big spring pressures ... knock on wood

None of us runs Comp's cams or lifters, so I can't say how that would work out ...

Mostly Crane, Isky or Howard's stuff
BrocLuno is offline  
post #5 of 11 (permalink) Old Apr 20th, 15, 1:53 AM
Senior Tech Team
Chris
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 6,097
Re: Test Data on 9 Different Break-In Oils

While I am always interested to read your findings, have you ever presented your results to the oil companies? I would love to hear their comments on your testing and results.
-SS454- is offline  
post #6 of 11 (permalink) Old Apr 20th, 15, 12:04 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
Bob
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jeannette Pa. near pittsburgh
Posts: 8,561
Re: Test Data on 9 Different Break-In Oils

I am going on 75 years old. I am so glad that I am learning about engine oil. When I did my first cam swap in 1958, I stuck a cam in my 265 Chevy. engine. I used the old lifters and the oil I drained out of the engine I dumped it back in. My 38 Chev.Cp. with a 265 engine ran just fine for 4 years, Then I bought a 283 and put a Duntov cam in it.
My one owner LS-5-M-22 Has had Pennzoil 40 weight oil in the engine for over 40 some years with no issues. After the resto. and engine rebuild, I use Brad Penn oil. I believe a lot of back alley guys like me have fun with cars & engines. If I were you I would write John Force a letter and tell him how you could help him win more races. You may be able to help a Top Fuel or Funny Car team.
One last item, Hendrick Motorsports, with your oil EXPERTISE, You could advise the Engine building department, On how to build better & Faster engines. Please do not use the term " New and Improved ". I have listened to those three words for, Just TOOoooooo many years.
Also, Engleburg Humperdinke, One of his top songs,= " Please ReGrease me, Change my Oil ".
I am thinking about a " Dipstick "
Bob


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
1970 SS LS-5/M-22 El Camino- Org. Owner-AACA 2016-Senior Grand National Winner---MCACN-GOLD-2013
1970 ( FRAUD) SS 468 Station Wagon - Driver.
Robinls5 is offline  
post #7 of 11 (permalink) Old Apr 20th, 15, 1:52 PM
Senior Tech Team
Rick
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Langhorne, Pa
Posts: 4,235
Re: Test Data on 9 Different Break-In Oils

They are called break in oils for a reason. They serve a purpose, you seem to have overlooked that purpose, or you simply are not aware of what really goes on.



Also, comparing a factory fill synthetic engine to a high performance race engine that requires break in and ring seating is just stupid.


How many production engines come with the size bores we run and the ring packages we see and then expect the type of leak down that we look for.


Go ahead, break your engine in with synthetic oil, i'll keep using my under performing dino oil and break in oil to prepare my engine to make 3-4 hp per cubic inch.

1967 Chevelle Malibu 4 door


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The 7.99 at 173mph pass:


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


8.02 at 171mph:


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Calculated Risk is offline  
post #8 of 11 (permalink) Old Apr 23rd, 15, 4:33 AM
Lifetime Premium Member
Jason
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Highland Village TX, USA
Posts: 3,130
Re: Test Data on 9 Different Break-In Oils

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calculated Risk View Post
They are called break in oils for a reason. They serve a purpose, you seem to have overlooked that purpose, or you simply are not aware of what really goes on.



Also, comparing a factory fill synthetic engine to a high performance race engine that requires break in and ring seating is just stupid.


How many production engines come with the size bores we run and the ring packages we see and then expect the type of leak down that we look for.


Go ahead, break your engine in with synthetic oil, i'll keep using my under performing dino oil and break in oil to prepare my engine to make 3-4 hp per cubic inch.
Rick,

I agree. I've done it both ways on the dyno. I know what doesn't work

I'll keep using Joe Gibbs BR30 for break-in pulls and switch to synthetic. When to switch depends on how many pulls.

The last time I switched on the dyno after about 20 pulls

Jason Gore
AKA DragRacer
Naturally Aspriated 450 SBC - 915 HP / 714 lb-ft
3370 lbs
1.36 - 60', 5.93 @ 116.7 MPH - 1/8th
DragRacer is offline  
post #9 of 11 (permalink) Old Apr 23rd, 15, 12:00 PM
Senior Tech Team
Kevin
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Posts: 5,064
Garage
Re: Test Data on 9 Different Break-In Oils

Well crap, I just dumped a bottle of comp cams break in additive in the new synthetic oil I put in my LS2. The engine has 49k miles on it but I swapped cam and lifters and was just trying to be extra cautious with it.

Wonder if that additive likely has too much in it that I should be worried about running the oil for my normal interval? Hate to waste $25 worth of oil.

Pro Touring 1971 Chevelle SS clone
head/cam LS2, 4l60e, 3.42 12 bolt
1.61 60ft [email protected] 1/8th [email protected] 1/4
thunderstruck507 is offline  
post #10 of 11 (permalink) Old Apr 23rd, 15, 1:05 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
Andy
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West Palm Florida
Posts: 7,112
Re: Test Data on 9 Different Break-In Oils

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderstruck507 View Post
Well crap, I just dumped a bottle of comp cams break in additive in the new synthetic oil I put in my LS2. The engine has 49k miles on it but I swapped cam and lifters and was just trying to be extra cautious with it.

Wonder if that additive likely has too much in it that I should be worried about running the oil for my normal interval? Hate to waste $25 worth of oil.
Sorry Kev, doesn't count. An LS2 could run off the blood of a thousand mice and still make 450 at the crank and last 240k.

This is in response to guys who lose cam lobes on FT cams during break in.

Couple of junkers and a few clunkers.
Andy's Auto Repair is offline  
post #11 of 11 (permalink) Old Apr 27th, 15, 1:00 PM
Senior Tech Team
Kevin
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Posts: 5,064
Garage
Re: Test Data on 9 Different Break-In Oils

haha thanks

Well Comp was still blaming ls cam failures on oil last I read. My new cam is from Cam Motion on a better core so I'm not worried about it but found a bottle of the additive cheap so I figured "what the hell?" and added it in.

Got it fired up and it's definitely healthy.

Pro Touring 1971 Chevelle SS clone
head/cam LS2, 4l60e, 3.42 12 bolt
1.61 60ft [email protected] 1/8th [email protected] 1/4
thunderstruck507 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Chevelle Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address. Note, you will be sent a confirmation request to this address.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Old Thread Warning
This Thread is more than 1758 days old. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
If you still feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so though.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome