Zinc Myth and Test Data on a Dozen more Oils

Unknown member · May 6, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Double the zinc for superior flat tappet cam protection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

540 RAT
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

Guest · May 6, 2013

Here's the ranking list:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oil categories for gasoline engines:

• Over 90,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection

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

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

• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

540 RAT
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

marks412 · May 6, 2013

I apreciate all the hard work and info. You have a lot of time involved in all this testing. If you go further with this, and take requests, I would like to see the Valvoline VR1 20w-50 Conventional Racing Oil in the silver bottle.

I'd also like to say, that from all this info, I only use the #1 oil and Wix filters in my girls new Honda Civic. I hope it lasts forever!!!!

72LS3Z27 · May 7, 2013

I appreciate this too.I use the Pennzoil platinum,because I can find it here in the 5 qt. bottle.Ive seen the ultra,but its usually by the qt,and not enough of them on the shelf in the same viscosity for me(5w-30).

Chevyobsessed · May 7, 2013

Before you get too excited about this gentleman's conclusions, such as "zinc (ZDDP) is a myth", read this first:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c3-...m/c3-tech-performance/3266544-zinc-myth-and-test-data-on-a-dozen-more-oils.html

HiFire · May 7, 2013

I'm not picking sides here, just wanted to say thanks for giving us all this information. If I had to do all that typing it would of taken me weeks of work. My hands were getting sore just reading it.

CoolBlueGlow · May 7, 2013

I appreciate the info as well. Yes, I read and grasped your post. yes, I also read the forum comments disagreeing with you over on The Corvette forum. In my opinion, the vast majority of them sound like marketing hype, compared to the hard data you provided.

...and I wouldn't give you two cents for "proofs" like Competition Cams' "we won't warranty it because of low ZDP oil use" excuse. These vendors are constantly looking for ways to push metallurgy standards lower and lower. They cut costs on cam blanks to reduce cost of manufacturing. That's why they take so much of their foundry work overseas...and we all know that China just can't cut it when it comes to metallurgy and manufacturing tolerances and standards. The bad oil myth is just one more subterfuge to avoid responsibility for crappy Chinese metallurgy, IMO

Keith

Ron454 · May 7, 2013

I would think the C5/C6 guys would love the list. Shows that the GM chosen 5W-30 Mobil 1 to be at the top of the heap.

I'm surprised the 15W-50 Mobil 1 is so low on the list....I've been using it in my rat motor since day 1.......it is however a roller cam setup.

Ron

93Polo · May 7, 2013

Another interesting oil tech topic Mobil1 is not reviewed very highly for a HR setup:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/aut...rum.com/autocrossing-and-roadracing/3153782-important-read-engine-oil-tech.html

427L88 · May 7, 2013

Mobil is too pricey for me. I may go back to Delo with a dollup. Excellent value, FT cam wear patterns were mint with that oil. Real data, the hardest there is. The cam and lifters themselves.

Although I'm liking #31 on the list.

So I guess this list is sorted based on only one criteria, the psi test. Not an engineer, but reality rarely revolves around one variable alone. Certainly wouldn't expect it with something as complex as motor oil. So like any other data or stats, take it for what it worth.

Thnx 540RAT for posting the results.

BTW, y'all aint seen marketing BS until you've dealt with "stereo" equipment aimed at teens. Omg. There my testing apparatus are two very sensitive audiophile caliber ears. They steal money from those kids parents, I tell ya.

Ron454 · May 7, 2013

427L88 said:
BTW, y'all aint seen marketing BS until you've dealt with "stereo" equipment aimed at teens. Omg. There my testing apparatus are two very sensitive audiophile caliber ears. They steal money from those kids parents, I tell ya.

I prefer Vacuum tube equipment, built by me.

Ron

novaderrik · May 7, 2013

go post this over on www.turbobuick.com and watch the GN guy's heads explode when they see what their precious ZDDP additive does to the oil...

maybe it's in there and maybe i missed it, but how do the Mobil 1 High Mileage oils (not the extended performance or whatever they call it) oils do in these tests? i've been running the 10W30 in my flat tappet equipped cars for a few years now because they have (or had) an SL rating on them..

Indiansprings · May 7, 2013

Do you got a link for the thread?

482 ZL1 · May 7, 2013

What's the top 10 oil for a HR ?
Looking at oil for my new engine

427L88 · May 7, 2013

Recently I got into a peeing match over Itunes sonic quality. Yeah, I cant prove anything. Its subjective. But I know what I hear, and what I dont hear. Its the same as going from vinyl to Cd's years ago. BTW, my gear is 30 year old NAD that has transistors and no ICs. BUT, when I play my bass out, its through "valves" for sure.

What do you run, some old McIntosh tube stuff, ( ahhh nirvana!) or do you really build your own?

And thanks again to 540 for the data, and a question. Does the base formulation impact the PSI number directly? Up here, Kendall used to be known ( 1970's) as the oil with the best crude base. SO max effort folks used Kendall 20-50 like religion. I assume that would show up in the psi shear test? Just as esther-based synthetics would show as high shear psi? Maybe?

BTW, I ran some ARCO graphite in a 72 Nova SS ( mild 350) and lost a rod bearing soon thereafter. Stopped my oil experimentation right quick! Keep the graphite on the reloading bench, NOT in an engine!

oliver69 · May 7, 2013

Do you have any info on this oil found in Europe by Valvoline vr1 10w60 ,
Below you can see the spec sheet , just curious of your opinions
Thanks

http://www.valvolineeurope.com/uploadedFiles/3646.pdf

427L88 · May 8, 2013

What did Harold B. call them, P55 cores? Good metallurgy helps.

540RAT, I am still curious as to how the different bases for the oil affect shear psi.

And BTW, I've always liked the Pennzoil Brand! Glad to hear they don'tt BS like so many others.

rel3rd · May 8, 2013

That's odd Andy. I thought Summit cams were still made by Crane? Maybe not?

I have used 2 Summit camshafts in past builds, and they both are still motoring along years later.

BTW, from Day 1 both running with just generic, off the shelf Walmart store brand dyno oil and no additives whatsoever.

65 Skylark · May 8, 2013

It figures, the Mobil 1 10W40 I've been using all these years isn't even listed. Any data on it?

SWHEATON · May 9, 2013

FOR THOSE THAT WANT THE TRUTH FROM THE EXPERTS THAT MFG FT CAMS AND MOTOR OIL MFGS ON IF ZINC & PHOS/ZDDP IS IS NEEDED FOR AN OLD SCHOOL MUSCLE CAR MOTOR RUNNING AN AFTERMARKET PERF CAM WITH ELEVATED SPRING RATES THEN READ WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT WHICH I PASTED BELOW.

(FROM FOR EXAMPLE,CRANE CAMS/COMP CAMS/AMSOIL/MOBIL/BRADPENN TO NAME JUST A FEW EXPERTS IN THE BIZ)

WHAT THEY REC IS RIGHT ON MONEY VS THE NONSENCE THATS BEING POSTED HERE THAT AN ELEVATED ZINC/PHOS LVL ISNT REQUIRED OR NEEDED FOR A NORMAL FT CAM SRV'C LIFE OR THAT ITS OK TO RUN TODAYS SM/SN RATED OIL WITH A PERF FT CAM.

ITS A QUALITY BASE STOCK OIL ALONG WITH A PROPER ZDDP PKG THAT " WORKING COLLECTIVELY TOGETHER " GIVES THE BEST PROTECTION FOR A FT CAM.

BUT A GOOD ZDDP PKG WITH LOW QUALITY BASE OIL ISNT BEST CASE FOR FT CAM PROTECTION AND A GOOD BASE OIL WITH A LOW QUALITY ZDDP PKG OR TOO LOW ZDDP LVL ISNT A BEST CASE FOR A NORMAL FT CAM SRV'C LIFE EITHER.

ITS NOT ALL ABOUT THE ZDDP ITSELF BUT NONE THE LESS ZINC/PHOS IS IMPORTANT FOR A NORMAL FT CAM/LIFTER SRV'C LIFE.

READ BELOW FOR DETAILS.

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

From Amsoil:

Provide facts outlining lubrication requirements of flat tappet
camshaft engines and the importance of higher levels of zinc
and phosphorus.

ISSUES:
Flat tappet camshafts undego extreme pressure and loads,
thus requiring an engine oil that is fortified with anti-wear
additives (ZDDP) to provide premium protection. The severity of
higher spring pressure in racing engines also creates the need
for additional wear protection.

To preserve catalytic converter life, zinc/phosphorus levels in
motor oil have been reduced. Concerns have risen that oils
containing lower levels of zinc/phosphorus could provide
insufficient protection in high-pressure areas of flat tappets
and camshaft lobes found in many older and high performance
engines.

TECHNICAL DISCUSSION:
The most commonly used anti-wear additive in motor oils is
zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP). ZDDP contains both
zinc and phosphorus components working together to provide
anti-wear protection, and is most important during cam
“break-in” procedures. Proper break-in lubes should be used
during the break-in phase for all new or rebuilt engines with
flat tappets. These lubricants provide the extra protection
required to reduce wear at the point of contact during break-in
and help the flat tappet face properly mate with the cam lobe.
Once the break-in phase is completed.

AMSOIL motor oils which are formulated with high levels of zinc and phosphorus,
will provide premium protection to flat tappet cams.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) and International
Lubricants Standards Approval Committee (ILSAC) have
mandated the reduction of phosphorus to extend catalytic converter
life.

However, reducing the level of ZDDP can compromise
protection to engine components, most notably in flat
tappet camshafts.Current API SM and ILSAC GF-4 specifications
for gasoline engines have maximum and minimum
phosphorus levels of 800 ppm and 600 ppm .

All engines (especially flat tappet) benefit from oils with superior film strength and anti-wear (ZDDP) properties. The flat tappet/camshaft lobe interface is the one
area in an engine that has extreme contact load. Since this load
increases significantly (more when non-stock,high-pressure valve
springs are employed) the use of properly formulated motor
oils is extremely important to reduce wear and extend flat tappet/
camshaft life.(oil with elevated zddp >800ppm is not for use with cat converters)

AMSOIL recommends motor oils containing high levels of zinc/phosphorus for superior protection especially for
flat tappet cam applications.
================================================== ================

CRANE CAMS:

CRANE FLAT TAPPET CAMSHAFT RECOMMENDED BREAK-IN PROCEDURE
Due to the EPA’s mandate for zinc removal from most motor oils, proper flat tappet camshaft break-in procedure is more critical than ever before. This is true for both hydraulic and mechanical flat tappet Camshafts. As a point of interest, the most critical time in the life of a flat tappet camshaft is the first 20 minutes of “break-in” during which the bottoms of the tappets “mate-in” with the cam lobes.
There are some oils with additive packages that are better for camshaft “break-in”. These include, but are not limited to: (Brad Penn or Joe Gibbs racing) or a “race only” petroleum- based oil and include Crane Cams Part # 99003-1 Super Lube” additive. Do not use API rated “SL” or “SM” oil.

CAUTION: We do not recommend the use of synthetic oils for “break-in”. Prior to installing the camshaft and lifters, it is recommended that the crankcase be drained and filled with new, clean oil, as listed above. The oil filter should also be changed at this time. Proper flat tappet camshaft break-in starts with the cam installation and includes the following steps:

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

Comp Cams:

Subject: Flat Tappet Camshaft Failures (Hydraulic & Solid/Mechanical)
Recent changes in oil and engine technology are likely the cause of premature camshaft
failure; here’s how you can protect your engine!

Premature flat tappet camshaft failure has been on the rise recently and not just with one brand or type of camshaft. In almost every case, the hardness or taper of the cam lobe is suspected, yet most of the time that is not the problem. This growing trend is due to factors that are completely unrelated to camshaft manufacture or quality control. Changes in today’s oil products and “advancements” in internal engine configurations have contributed to a harsher environment for the camshaft and a potential for failure during break-in.

Engine Oil Selection
Another major factor in the increase of flat tappet camshaft failure is your favorite brand of
engine oil. Simply put, today’s engine oil is just not the same as it used to be, thanks to ever tightening environmental regulations. The EPA has done a great job in reducing emissions and the effects of some of the ingredients found in traditional oils; however these changes in the oil have only made life tougher on your flat tappet camshaft. The lubricity of the oil and specifically the reduction of important anti-wear additives such as zinc and phosphorus, which help break-in and overall camshaft life, have been drastically reduced. In terms of oil selection, we recommend oil with the proper level of “ZDDP”, Zinc Dialkyl Dithiosphosphate additive fortification.

Recent market trends and misinformation have led to a new and adverse side effect known as “Overloading on ZDDP”. When overloading on ZDDP, the additive can actually cause blocking of other important additives, such as friction modifiers or detergent agents. It is imperative that the ZDDP level is carefully specified and blended to correct concentrations.

Engine Oils, Supplements, & Additives
Making certain that the camshaft and lifters are properly lubricated upon installation will
guarantee that they are protected during the critical start-up of your newly-built engine. COMP Cams® offers the right product for this job (COMP Cams® Part #153), and it is available in several different size containers for engine builder convenience. COMP Cams® also has a line of Break-In Oils (COMP Cams® Part #1590 [10w30] and #1595 [20w50]) which have a proprietary formula that includes the proper amount of critical additives, including ZDDP (Zinc& Phosphorus), Molybdenum, detergents and high grade base oil to give you the most optimumoil for the break-in and long-term running of all your purposefully chosen performance enginecomponents. If you have a preferred oil with which you feel comfortable, we strongly recommend the use of COMP Cams® Break-In Oil Additive (COMP Cams® Part #159) duringbreak-in.

COMP Cams®
3406 Democrat Rd. * Memphis, TN 38118
Phone: 1-800-999-0853 * Fax: (901) 366-1807
www.compcams.com
Part #255

Revised 1/29/10
subsequent testing has proven the durability benefits of its long term use. This proprietary blend of anti-wear ZDDP fortification, anti-fiction Molybdenum, and extreme pressure additives promotes proper break-in and protects against premature cam and lifter failure by replacing some of the beneficial ingredients that the oil companies have been forced to remove from off-theshelf oil. These specialized COMP Cams® lubricants are the best “insurance policy” you can buy, and are the first step to avoiding durability problems with your new flat tappet camshaft.
================================================== =====

MOBIL-1'S ANSWER TO OLD SCHOOL FT CAM'D MOTOR OIL REQUIREMENTS FROM THIER WEBSITE.

Heres an example from Mobil oil website question section on what they rec for a high perf ft cam app like your avg old school sbc with a high perf ft cam.

BTW,the 15w-50 nascar endorsed syn oil the Mobil-1 tech is reffering to below has a decent 1300ppm zddp per mobil-1 website and also note they/Mobil-1 didnt rec a much thinner 5-30 or 10-30 grade SN rated oil with a much lower zddp lvl for the hi perf FT cam app in question i cut & pasted from the Mobil-1 website which is because its not best choice in Mobil-1's opinon for that app.

So read the info i patsed below and then make you own choice from there weather to use low zddp lvl SN rated oils in your hi perf ft cam apps as long as said oil with good zddp lvl also has a good quality base stock oil & additive pkg to back up the proper zddp lvl to work together collectively as a strong team to better protect a hi perf FT cam'd motor.

Scott

Ask Mobil

Oil for a Modified 70’s Camaro

Ask Your Stickiest Question. . . Or ask us something you’ve always wanted to know about using our products. We’ll sort through all the submissions and present the best questions to our automotive experts. We'll share the questions and their answers here.

Question:

Oil for a Modified 70’s Camaro
Everyone seems to have an opinion and your chart does not go back to 1970. I just bought a 1970 Camaro highly modified 400 Chevy small block. The car does not get driven much - only to car shows and the drag strip a couple times a year. What is the best oil to use because these motors tend to have heat issues. It has a " flat tappet cam ". I want max protection and have used your products for years but not synthetics. Thanks for info.
-- Dennis Boyd, Lexington, KY

Answer:
For your Camaro, we would recommend Mobil 1™ 15W-50 synthetic motor oil. Mobil 1 15W-50 is a higher viscosity synthetic oil that delivers a thick oil film for protection of high performance engines. Mobil 1 15W-50 is recommended for older valve trains like the highly loaded flat tappets used in your Camaro. These types of engines benefit from the higher level of anti-wear (ZDDP) in that oil normally not required in newer generation vehicles.
==================================================

Brad Penn:

The Brad Penn® Penn Grade 1® High Performance Oils contain the higher level of anti-wear (ZDDP – zinc dialkyldithiophosphate) and enhanced film strength so critical to proper high performance engine protection. The Penn-Grade 1® oils “typical” 1,500 ppm Zinc (Zn) and 1340-1400 ppm Phosphorus (P) content provide the needed anti-wear protection to critical engine parts, such as piston/cylinder walls, roller cams under heavy valve spring pressure and especially those that employ a solid “flat tappet” type system. As important as the chemistry is to the Penn-Grade 1® oils, it is by no means the whole story. The unique base oil cut used to refine the Penn-Grade 1® High Performance Oils maintain a tremendous affinity to metal surfaces. This naturally occurring “metal wetting” characteristic enables the oil to stay put on your highly stressed engines and makes the Penn-Grade 1® High Performance Oil resist slinging for an extended period of time. Also, rest assured in knowing that the Penn-Grade 1® High Performance Oils are 100% Made in the USA.
==================================================
Scott,

The ILSAC requirement demands that you are only allowed to have max of 800ppm of ZDDP in energy conserving SM, SN & newest GF-5 motor oils, which are your 10W30 and lower viscosities.

As you can see the Mobil1 15W-50 syn is also API "SN" but we are allowed to formulate it with as much ZDDP in the formulation (1300ppm) for FT cam use without issue because it is not an energy conserving motor oil.

So to answer your question, it is never a good idea to use an ILSAC rated SM-SN-GF-5 motor oil (with 800ppm zddp) for flat tappet cammed engines.

-- Thank you for choosing ExxonMobil products.

Stokerboats · May 9, 2013

Why do Goodwrench engines NOT come with a can of EOS like they once did?

MikeN · May 9, 2013

I believe there is/was an additive in GM EOS that the EPA banned.

MikeN · May 9, 2013

I thought the Summit cams were made by Melling.

Anyway, last summer I put a Summit cam in the 350 that powers my daily driver 64 C10 truck. I didn't do anything special on break-in (a bottle of GM EOS and some gray assembly paste on the lobes - can't remember the brand) and it's running fine nearly a year later.

I don't believe the ZDDP hype. Run off-the-shelf 10W-30 or 10W-40 in both of my Chevy V8's and have never had a problem.

Modern high performance cam grinds have more extreme lobe profiles than older grinds, and require higher spring pressures. The combination of the lobes and the spring pressures reduces the life of the lobes, IMHO.

Stokerboats · May 9, 2013

Replys to both of your responses. The solid flat tappet in my Chevelle is reasonbaly aggressive. .656 & 264*@ .50 on a 108lsa and I'm on year 7. That said it's a p-55 core with Isky hardenable Iron EDM lifters.
Chevy Goodwrench replacements aren't so agressive but the engine does cover pre cat applications. I suspect those engines are run in down in Mexico before they are crated. The lobes are anything but agressive but that said the 290 hp version doesn't include EOS either and isn't considerd a smog replacement engine at all. When EOS is used it is only recommended or break in as it creates ash in the cylinder as per some instruction I read years ago from Chevy. Modern oils are fairly better than oils of yore. Marketing is designed to sell product, not necessarily for the betterment of mankind.

Stokerboats · May 9, 2013

I once used regular 20/50 valvoline racing oil in my car because I drove it to and from the track 30 miles each direction. I did it for years and never gave any more thought to it. I had a couple bouts with some solid roller lifters which for me raised the anttenna on wtf just happened. The first being the Comp Street Rollers with Endurex lifters and their suggested 924 springs. I was a novice and was trying to figure out what was up so I started paying a bit more attention. Well, several things were going on unknown to me. I was using the -8 core and the Endurex lifters. After driving 30 miles in stop and go to the track I made a pass and found a pretty noisy knocking sound coming from inside the engine while on the return road. There were a total of 9 axles that had found the way out of the lifterand when that lifter is headed up in the bore but is stopped before it gets there it gets rather noisy. Although I had been warned by the guys at Chet Herbert not to use solid rollrers on the street I had to do it abyway because the internet said evryone else had no issues. So with needles throughout the engine it got towed home and torn apart and bored for round two. The second time I changed companys went 1500 mile and only one lifter needle set failed. Well it came apart again, got some new machine work and some flat tappet lifters which have been very kind to me for 7 years. (This is the point th engine received lifter bushings. I'll accept some responsibity as I had used some oil restrictors but do not feel they contributed to those failures I did however increae the restricitor hole size to 90 thou. I also switched to royal purple from 20/50 dino and on the fwy at temp at 3600 rpm's I picked up oil pressure from 68 psi with the dino to 72 psi with the royal purple That showed me thet the oil wasn't breakinh down like the Dino even though it was a thinner voscosity. I have had outstanding performance and longevity with my solid flat tappet and 10/30 Royal Purple Parts store blend. My next engine attempt will be with the Isky EZRoll option lifter.

Brian Hoss · May 9, 2013

Man...the things you read on the internet...

Summits cams are ground by CMC and have been for quite some time. Never was a crane grind.

Comp Cam has never gotten or used "forgings" from China nor has lowered their "metallurgy standards". Every manufacturer must state the country of origin on their products. The COO is required by law for those companies doing business for example in Canada, which consumes a significant amount of performance and accessroy product.

Stokerboats · May 9, 2013

Brian Hoss said:
Man...the things you read on the internet...

Summits cams are ground by CMC and have been for quite some time. Never was a crane grind.

Comp Cam has never gotten or used "forgings" from China nor has lowered their "metallurgy standards". Every manufacturer must state the country of origin on their products. The COO is required by law for those companies doing business for example in Canada, which consumes a significant amount of performance and accessroy product.

Comp endurex were terrible I don't care where they came from. Think about it , lay a lifter over on its side and have the axles fall right out. 9 of them from one set.

-8 cores are weak and 924 springs are great rpm limiters. Comp does offer many grinds but that said a few happy ending's might help their cause. I have a brand new box of the 819-16's why am I hesitant to use them?

427L88 · May 9, 2013

Still no one on the oil base composition and shear psi?

meltdowndan · May 10, 2013

Have you ever tested (heard of) Driven Racing Oil (from Joe Gibbs Racing)?? The shop the car is in for a Dyno tune is pushing it hard on me. Just looking to get an un-biased opinion of this stuff?

(currently I'm 10w30 Mobil 1, but its only about 100miles old - unsure of what was used prior to me owning it - thinking Quaker State 10w30 )

Looking at Driven HR4 SYN 10W-30

http://www.drivenracingoil.com/dro/hr-4-synthetic-10w-30.html

383 stroker - Hyper Pistons 600FM / 280H Flat tappet

CoolBlueGlow · May 10, 2013

Comp may not have lowered their standards on cams, but perhaps the following illustration would make it easier to see how one might be suspect of other QC behaviors.

The Comp Cam BBC guide "sheets" I bought from them last year were measurably substandard and unusable. They were from China. The pushrod centers were .0625 out of spec, the material .100 thick...which is .050 thinner than OEM GM. The stamping itself a showed incipient fractures at the 90 degree bends, when viewed under UV examination. this was due to faulty mfg. practices, incorrect material selection, which allowed excessive stress to form risers in the too-thin sheet metal from which these guide "sheets" were bent.

Maybe you're saying "what the h--l is a guide sheet...does he mean guide plate?. No, I call them "Guide Sheets" because according to ASME standards, any steel rolled stock under .150 thickness is considered sheet steel, not plate.

The comp cams guide plates are .100 thick. That makes them sheet stock, not plate.

Wanna guess how thick OEM GM guide plates Are? Yep, .150", the minimum thickness material that may properly be called "plate", according to American Society of Mechanical Engineers' handbook of materials specifications.

Comp tech support never responded. You can still buy the same part from them today.

Just my personal experience. I'm sure their cam blanks are first class.

Keith

dt · May 11, 2013

CoolBlueGlow said:
Comp may not have lowered their standards on cams, but perhaps the following illustration would make it easier to see how one might be suspect of other QC behaviors.

The Comp Cam BBC guide "sheets" I bought from them last year were measurably substandard and unusable. They were from China. The pushrod centers were .0625 out of spec, the material .100 thick...which is .050 thinner than OEM GM. The stamping itself a showed incipient fractures at the 90 degree bends, when viewed under UV examination. this was due to faulty mfg. practices, incorrect material selection, which allowed excessive stress to form risers in the too-thin sheet metal from which these guide "sheets" were bent.

Maybe you're saying "what the h--l is a guide sheet...does he mean guide plate?. No, I call them "Guide Sheets" because according to ASME standards, any steel rolled stock under .150 thickness is considered sheet steel, not plate.

The comp cams guide plates are .100 thick. That makes them sheet stock, not plate.

Wanna guess how thick OEM GM guide plates Are? Yep, .150", the minimum thickness material that may properly be called "plate", according to American Society of Mechanical Engineers' handbook of materials specifications.

Comp tech support never responded. You can still buy the same part from them today.

Just my personal experience. I'm sure their cam blanks are first class.

Keith

I think we are getting a little nutty here. Everyone refers to them as guide plates because of what they are, not because of how thick they are. Lets keep it simple.

Guest · May 11, 2013

In case you missed my response on another oil thread:

I am not some nameless and faceless person floating around on the Internet. A number of folks on this Forum know me personally. They know what major Engineering Company I work for, and some of them are familiar with a few of my accomplishments as well as the Patents that I've been awarded in the Engineering world. But, I don't think it is the whole world's business to know what my personal credentials are. How many others provide that about themselves? But, I will say that I'm a Professional Degreed Engineer and leave it at that. And this should not come as any surprise, because it is always at the bottom in my signature.

I typically do not follow along with the my oil testing threads, because this is not my first Rodeo. I'm well aware that there are a few people who just want to argue back and forth continuously for days on end, or even longer. And I don't have time for that nonsense. I try to include all the necessary information in each of my posts, so they can stand alone without further explanation. But, for folks who have a legitimate question, they can always PM me.

The oil testing I perform is not some flaky voodoo snake oil hype. I don't sell any oil, so I'm not trying to convince anyone to buy any certain oil. People can buy whatever they want and it doesn't make any difference to me. I did the oil testing for my own knowledge because there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding out there about motor oil. My findings surprised me as much as anyone, because I also had been brainwashed to believe that high zinc levels were needed to provide high levels of wear protection. Now I know from my testing that the whole high zinc level deal was nothing more than a MYTH that has now been BUSTED. The GM oil report that I have referenced in my recent write-ups, came to the same conclusion as my testing. So, to the naysayers I ask, how do you explain that my testing is invalid if it matches GM's findings?

I do not need to remake my test rig, because it is accurate enough to pick fly specks out of the pepper, as they say. It provides very good consistency and repeatability, which is paramount in any type of testing. I test every single oil exactly the same, and the results come out how they come out. It doesn't matter how I mix up the order of the oils I test, it doesn't matter when I test the oils, it doesn't matter how many times I test the oils. The results for any given oil are always the same within a couple of percent or so. And I consider that more than good enough for back to back motor oil comparison. The oils are being compared relative to each other, nothing else.

You will not find back to back oil testing that is done on the same equipment, using the same procedure, at the same temperature, by the same operator, anywhere else. So, this is the best apples to apples oil comparison you will ever find.

If certain readers are so stuck in their beliefs about the old high zinc Folklore, and can't grasp the value of this actual real world oil test data, then that is their loss. Instead of them trying to slam my test data with no proof to back up what they say, I challenge them to come up with something that is any better.

And for those who just can't get past the idea of high zinc levels being questioned, try to find any real world wear test data like I have provided that proves that zinc performs any better than what I have found. You can't do it and Cam Companies can't do it, because people simply have a misconception of how zinc works and what it can do. Every last claim that you need high levels of zinc for high levels of protection, is only words without test data proof to back it up.

The number one oil in my testing is 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, which is a modern low zinc API certified oil. It has OVER TWICE the wear protection capability of the lowest ranked oil which is very high zinc 30wt Lucas Break-In oil. For those who can't believe that, test both of them in high spring pressure flat tappet motors and you will see for yourself.

Everything I have posted about my motor oil test data is pure fact from real world testing. Actual real world testing is absolute. If you drop a sledge hammer on your foot, it will hurt. That is real world testing. It is absolute, and you cannot argue with that. My oil testing is no different. Only a fool would argue against real world test proof.

BOTTOM LINE: In order to choose the best possible wear protection for ANY engine, including flat tappet engines, you must choose from a "Wear Protection Capability" ranking list, such as I have put together. If you choose only from a zinc level reference chart, you will only be guessing. Because zinc levels alone, cannot tell you anything about how well an oil provides wear protection. Some high zinc oils perform very well, while other high zinc oils perform very poorly.

I provide my real world test data as a courtesy to like-minded gearheads, because some buddies had asked to, so that everyone could share in the findings. So I did, and I have had a huge number of positive responses from all over the world. And a good number of them have asked me to continue posting my data, in spite of what the nasty people say. So, I will. People can choose to embrace my factual test data and make use of it, or they can simply choose to ignore it. I doesn't affect me one way or the other.

540 RAT
Member:
SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

Zinc Myth and Test Data on a Dozen more Oils

Our Vendors

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities