Motor Oil Test Data

MOTOR OIL ENGINEERING TEST DATA | 540 RAT - Tech Facts, NOT Myths
540 RAT TECH FACTS, NOT

MYTHS
Q AND A
MOTOR OIL ENGINEERING TESTDATA

by 540 RAT
The date June 20, 2013 just above, is the date this Blog was first started, NOT the date of
the information included. It is regularly updated with the latest information, as indicated
by the date several paragraphs below.
NOTE: The motor oil wear protection test data included in this Blog is from
performance testing of many different motor oils, which shows how they compare
relative to each other. The focus is on the motor oils themselves. Therefore, the resulting
comparison data applies to ANY engine that uses the oils included here, no matter if the
engine is used for racing, daily driving, grocery getting, watercraft, or any other activity.
Before we get into motor oil tech, lets briefly touch on a little background info. That
way people will better understand who I am and where Im coming from. Here are my
credentials:
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder (Mechanical device designed for Military Jet Aircraft)
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
Lifelong Gear Head, Mechanic, Hotrodder, Drag Racer, and Engine Builder
Im a working Professional Degreed Mechanical Engineer, and Mechanical Design
Engineering is what I do for a living. A Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most
qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for
wear protection capability between mechanical components under load. But, as you will
see below, the following write-up is not intended to be a chapter out of an Engineering
textbook. And the intended audience is not other Engineers. There are no formulas,
https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]
equations, charts or graphs. The intended audience includes Automotive Enthusiasts,

Gear Heads, Hotrodders, Racers and Engine builders. So, it is written in normal
everyday spoken language, rather than overly technical jargon. That way, it will be the
Follow
540
easiest to follow and understand by the widest possible audience. And some
key points
Tech Facts,
will be intentionally reiterated from time to time as the information presented
here
progresses, to emphasize those points.
Myths
** This Blog now has over 135,000 views worldwide!!
Follow
RAT NOT
Get every new post delivered to

your Inbox.
Join 116 other followers
Its view count increases by about 6,000 views per month on average. And the highest
number ofviewson a single daytook placeon November 6, 2015 when 996 views were
Enter your email address
recorded. Of course simply listing the number of views by itself, is not intended to
indicate validation of the test data (validation is shown throughout the Blog). But,
indicating the number of views does show that an enormous number of people
worldwide recognize the value, understand the importance, and make use of the motor
website with WordPress.com
oil test data FACTS included here, that cannot be found anywhere else. AndBuild
as aa result,
they are posting and sharing links to this Blog, all over the world.
Sign me up
The independent and unbiased Engineering testing I perform at a representative

OPERATING OIL 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.
The resulting data used in the Wear Protection Ranking List is NOT my opinion, and it
is NOT my theory. The data is the result of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the
testing. I am only the messenger. The Science is what tells us how these oils perform.
And no one can argue with Physics and Chemistry.
You can see my entire 150+ motor oil Wear Protection Ranking List, which
EXACTLY matches real world severe over-heating experience, real world Track
experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance
Street experience (test data validation doesnt get any better than this), along with
additional motor oil tech FACTS, by reading below.
NOTE: All oils used in the testing here, were purchased in the U.S.A.
**********
.
!! THE INFORMATION ON THIS BLOG WAS LAST UPDATED ON November 17,
2015 !!
Some minor text updates were made.
.
***********
.
BLOG TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Section 1 Motor Oil Wear Protection Ranking List which is determined by each
oils film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance psi value, that results from
being subjected to a dynamic friction test under load, at a representative operating
temperature. The vast majority of the oils tested here, were tested just as they come,
right out of the bottle. But, there are also some oils tested with aftermarket additives put
in them. These additive tests were for informational purposes only, and are not generally
recommended. Because aftermarket additives can ruin an oils carefully formulated
original additive package, aside from what it may or may not do for its wear protection
capability. It is always best to choose a good performing oil in the first place, that does
not need any help.
Section 2 Motor Oil Viscosity Selection
Section 3 Motor Oil Thermal Breakdown Test Data
Section 4 Motor Oil component quantity Lab Test results includes the amount of
zinc, phosphorus, detergent, acid neutralizer and more
Section 5 Reserved for future Motor Oil Test Data
Section 6 Detailed Motor Oil and Mechanical Tech Articles
NOTE: Some of the motor oil Articles were written before the most recently tested
motor oils were added to the Wear Protection Ranking List in Section 1. The articles
included are:
1.I-Beam vs H-Beam which Connecting Rod is Best?
2.Rod Bolt Strength what do we Really need?
3.Solid Roller Lifters Bushings vs Needles, which is Best?
4.Camshaft Overlap vs LSA (Lobe Separation Angle)
5.Leak Down Test vs Compression Test, which is Best?
6.Can you really suck the Oil Pan dry?
7.Dynamic Compression Ratio (DCR) vs Static Compression Ratio (SCR)

8.0W40 vs 5W30 vs 0W30
9.Aftermarket Zinc Additives Do they Work?
10.Break-In Oils Do we Really need them?
11.Can you always count on high zinc motor oil?
12.Diesel Oil Is it the right choice for High Performance gasoline engines?
13.Do comparable zinc levels provide comparable wear protection?
14.Does Prolong Engine Treatment actually work?
15.Test Data on the newest Pennzoils made from Natural Gas
16. High Temp Motor Oil Wear Testing Myth vs Reality
17. Do HTHS (High-Temperature/High-Shear) values provide any useful information
about wear protection capability?
18. Engineering Test Data on High Mileage Motor Oils
19. Engine Dyno HP vs Chassis Dyno HP
20. Std Volume oil pumps vs High Volume oil pumps Is there really a HP difference?
21. Points Ignition vs Electronic Ignition
22. How to choose your own Camshaft
***********
TYPICAL GEAR HEAD MINDSET vs ENGINEER MINDSET

A typical Gear Heads mindset regarding new flat tappet engine Break-In is, What Ive
been doing works, so I dont want to change anything. An Engineers mindset is, No
matter what youve been doing, lets see if we can move forward and improve things,
making them better than they were before.
An example of this regarding motor oil is, a typical Gear Head has been using some high
zinc oil, or some oil with an aftermarket zinc additive also poured in. And with that, he
thinks he has made a good oil selection. But, using oil like that, knowing nothing
more than the zinc level, requires a careful and elaborate break-in procedure, if there is
any hope of not wiping any lobes in a flat tappet engine. Hes managed to get by with
this, so he thinks he has it all figured out.
But, when his motor oil concoction is put through Engineering Wear Protection Testing,
the results often show it to be a low performer regarding film strength load carrying
capability, no matter how much zinc is present. As a result, that oil ranks rather low on
my Wear Protection Ranking List, and means that it provided only a very low Margin of
Safety. With this being the case, the engine was at significant risk of failure. So, he has
essentially been playing Russian Roulette with his engine, without even knowing it.
For those not familiar with the term, Margin of Safety refers to how much capability
your motor oil provides, vs how much capability you actually need to prevent wear
and/or damage/failure. The higher the Margin of Safety, the more reserve wear
protection capability you have available, and the safer your engine is.
The careful and elaborate flat tappet break-in procedures that Gear Heads typically use,
is nothing more than a crutch to try and prevent wiped lobes with low performing motor
oils. A fair number of people have been lucky enough to get away with this, while some
others have been wiping lobes. And wiped flat tappet lobes have been all too common
over the past few years, even though name brand, highly respected parts are being used.
It can be a hit or miss situation, regarding wiping lobes or not wiping lobes. But, it
doesnt have to be this way, if better performing oils are chosen.
And keep in mind that so-called Break-Oils with their typical low wear protection
capability are absolutely NOT required for proper break-in and ring sealing. That has
been proven over the past couple of decades by numerous Factories using highly ranked
5W30 Mobil 1 synthetic oil in their brand new performance vehicles. They break-in and
seal their rings just fine, and of course come with a warranty.
Being an Engineer with clear improvement in mind to solve the iffy situation of wiping
lobes or not wiping lobes, I recommend switching to different motor oils that rank far
higher on my Wear Protection Ranking List, no matter how much zinc they have. The
only thing that truly matters is an oils film strength load carrying capability, NOT
merely how much zinc it has. Using much higher ranking motor oils with their much
higher wear protection capability, means that special break-in procedures ARE NOT
REQUIRED. And an engine will be far safer due to the better motor oils providing a
much higher Margin of Safety.
The Engineering mindset that resulted in the Wear Protection Ranking List, is the whole
point of this Blog. So now, we no longer have to guess which oil is best. We have the
data available at our finger tips to show us how various motor oils compare head to
head, regarding wear protection capability.
And since you have to buy motor oil anyway, why not use this Engineering Wear
Protection Test Data to help you select a high performing motor oil with excellent wear
protection? The engine you save may be your own.
=================================
.
SECTION 1- MOTOR OIL WEAR PROTECTION RANKING LIST.
.
THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT thing a motor oil does for your engine, is prevent
wear. Everything else it does for your engine, comes AFTER that. But, I have found that
there is a tremendous amount of misinformation and misunderstanding about motor oil.
The worst of all is that a lot of people, even those at Cam Companies, blindly accept the
MYTH about needing high levels of zinc in motor oil in order to have sufficient wear
protection. But, that line of thinking is NOT based on technical fact, and is simply
FALSE. So, at the beginning of 2012, I began Tribology Research using motor oil
Wear Testing equipment, to explore the facts regarding the wear prevention
capabilities of motor oil. For those not familiar with the terminology, Tribology means
the study of friction, lubrication, and wear between moving surfaces.
Im a total perfectionist when it comes to technical issues. And those who know me
personally, know that I would never jeopardize my reputation or my integrity, by
posting test data that would turn the Hobby/Industry on its ear, unless I was absolutely
sure about the data I put out there. Of course Ive always known my carefully generated
data is completely accurate. And to make that clear to the world, you will see below that
my test dataEXACTLYmatches real world severe over-heating experience, real world
race track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High
Performance street experience.
.
OIL TEST DATA
IDENTICAL
AND
SEVERE
OVER-HEATING
EXPERIENCE
ARE
I received the following feedback from one of my Oil Test Data Blog readers:
Hi RAT, I want to share a real world experience about one of the oils you have tested.
About a year ago, my son was driving our old 1999 Toyota Camry, with 230,000 miles
on it at the time, in heat of summer. And you know how young kids are today, they
dont know very much about how to look after cars. So, he drives about 45 miles to his
destination, and parks it.
By this time, because of a leak from the water pump, most of the coolant is gone. But,
because he shuts the engine off and walks away without noticing the leak, the engine
cools off. The next day when he wants to drive home, there is no coolant left in engine.
But, he doesnt know that, so he starts it up and drives away. After driving about 30
miles on the freeway, it overheats so much that the engine stalls. Thats when I get the
call!
After I towed the car home, I filled radiator and noticed the leak from water pump, and
the head gasket was leaking into the combustion chamber. So, I knew it had over-heated
really bad, TWICE. I expected that the pistons and valves must have been damaged due
to the extreme heat. But, after I took the head off, the valves and cylinder walls looked
in surprisingly good shape. After I put it back together, it ran as good as before. And it
now has 244,000 miles on it.
I then knew, the oil that was in it at the time, played very important role, and had
prevented the pistons from being damaged. BUT, that oil wasnt in your ranking list at
the time. So, I always wondered where that oil would it rank if ever tested?
Guess what? Now that you have tested that oil, it ranked near the very top of the
Ranking List. It is 5W30 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage (red bottle).
So if anyone doesnt want to believe in your oil test ranking, I have to tell them they
better believe it. I am positive that it was the high wear protection capability of that
motor oil that kept the engine from further damage!!
His experience shows precisely what Ive talked about, when I have said that having
extra reserve wear protection capability from highly ranked oils, may well save your
engine when bad things happen.
.
OIL TEST DATA AND RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE ARE IDENTICAL

.
An oval track dirt racer (his class is extremely competitive, so he asked that his name be
left out) on the SpeedTalk Forum runs a 7200 rpm, solid flat tappet, 358ci Small Block
Chevy motor, with valve spring pressures of about 160 on the seat and 400 open, that
are shimmed to .060 from coil bind. The rules and the combination of parts, were
causing him to experience repeated cam failures while using high zinc, semi-synthetic
10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil. Lab Report Data from testing performed by
Professional Lab, ALS Tribology in Sparks, Nevada, showed that this oil contains
1557 ppm zinc, 1651 ppm phosphorus, and 3 ppm moly. In spite of this being a high
zinc oil, that most folks would assume provides excellent wear protection, he
experienced wiped lobe cam failure about every 22 to 25 races.
.
A race consists of one 8 lap (a lap is typically 3/8 mile) heat race and one 20 lap feature
race, plus any caution laps. If you add it all up, 25 races only total about 281 miles at the
point of cam failure. So, that is a perfect example of what Ive been saying all along
about high zinc levels being absolutely NO GUARANTEE of adequate wear protection.
And my test data on this 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil, shows that it
produces a wear protection capability of only 71,206 psi, which puts it in the MODEST
wear protection category, and it ranks a very disappointing 115th out of 159 oils tested
so far. That means of course that there are 114 different oils Ive tested that provide
better wear protection.
.
So, my test data ACCURATELY PREDICTED EXACTLY what he experienced during

racing. And that is, that this oil does not provide high enough wear protection capability
to provide a sufficient margin of safety for this engines operating conditions. Looking
at my Wear Protection Ranking List and choosing a much higher ranked oil, would
have prevented all those cam failures. Repeatedly suffering cam failures in motors with
so little time on them, may have been considered by some folks to be a normal
consumption of parts back in the 60s or 70s. But, in the 21st Century that we live in
now, by any measure, that is for sure premature failure. We no longer have to accept
that as the cost of doing business, because we can do far better now.
.
So, he switched to the super micro polished billet lifters from PPPC and the cam life
went up to 40 races, which was an improvement since he could now go 450 miles
between failures. But, that was still clearly unacceptable. Then later on, he started using
Oil Extreme Concentrate as an additive to the 10W30 Brad Penn, and hes never lost
a lobe on a cam since. Adding the Oil Extreme Concentrate completely eliminated his
premature wiped lobe cam failures. At the time of this writing, the motor had gone 70+
Races without issue, and was still doing fine. This Oil Extreme Concentrate is one
additive that actually works as advertised, and makes low ranked oils far better than
they were to begin with. And that is PRECISELY WHAT MY MOTOR OIL TEST
DATA PREDICTED as well.
.
Heres how. I also added Oil Extreme Concentrate to 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade
1 semi-synthetic, as part of my motor oil Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load
research. And with 2.0 OZ of Oil Extreme Concentrate added per qt, which is the
amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability shot up by a BREATH
TAKING 56%, to an amazing 111,061psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear
protection category, and now ranks it a jaw dropping 6th out of 159 oils tested so far.
So, it moved up a whopping 109 ranking positions, just by adding the Oil Extreme
Concentrate. This totally accounts for the reason all his cam lobe failures were
eliminated.
.
In addition to this, a NASCAR team sent me three high zinc synthetic Mobil 1 Racing
Oils for testing, because they were having wear problems when using these oils (more
on that below). Lab Report Data from testing performed on these oils by Professional
Lab, ALS Tribology in Sparks, Nevada, showed that on average, these oils contained
1774 ppm zinc, 1658 ppm phosphorus, and 1444 ppm moly. And because these were all
high zinc oils, most folks would assume that theyd provide sufficient wear
protection. However, the results of my testing showed that these oils only provided
POOR WEAR PROTECTION CAPABILITY. So, they were NOT a good choice for
their racing application, which confirmed why they had wear problems. This is yet
another perfect example of what Ive been saying about high zinc levels being NO
GUARENTEE of adequate wear protection. And this example clearly showed once
again that my test data EXACTLY MATCHED what this race team had experienced on
the track.
.
So, these examples PROVE once and for all, that my test data EXACTLY MATCHES
REAL WORLD RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE, and that my test data is the spot on
REAL DEAL, just as Ive said all along. This completely confirms that my test results
WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running
engines on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils. So, that
should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my
test data compares to the real world. And if anyone thinks my data comes from flawed
methodology, they are not paying attention, and need to reread everything again more
carefully.
.
OIL TEST DATA AND WIPED LOBE AT BREAK-IN EXPERIENCE ARE
IDENTICAL
.
A guy on the Corvette Forum, whose name I will leave out, built a replica 454, flat
tappet LS6 BBC engine for a 1970 Corvette, using a Crane Cams blueprint LS6 cam
and Crane solid lifters. He used Brad Penn Break-In oil, then after initial break-in, he
changed the oil to Brad Penn 10W40. Then after about 100 miles he heard a tapping
noise. After looking into it, he found a wiped cam lobe and ruined lifter. There were
metal particles throughout the entire engine, causing devastation which had damaged
the rod and main bearings, the oil pump, and the crankshaft, thus requiring another very
costly and time consuming total rebuild.
.
He has built many engines over the years, always using Crane Cams solid or hydraulic
cams and never had a failure. So, hes an experienced engine builder, used parts from
Crane Cams, a reputable Industry Leader, and used oil with plenty of zinc. Problem is,
he is among those who think any oil is fine, as long as it has plenty of zinc in it.
However, my Engineering tests of the Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, Break-In oil, shows
that it produces a film strength load carrying capacity of only 56,020 psi, which ranks it
151st out of 159 oils tested so far, and puts it in the UNDESIRABLE wear protection
category, even though its high in zinc. And my Engineering tests of the 10W40 Brad
Penn, Penn Grade 1, shows that it produces a film strength load carrying capacity of
only 57,864 psi, which ranks it 147th out of 159 oils tested so far, and also puts it in the
UNDESIRABLE wear protection category, even though it has a high zinc level. That of
course means that 150 other oils provide better wear protection than his Break-In oil,
and 146 other oils provide better wear protection than his after break-in oil.
.
So, this is another example where my test data accurately predicted that using these
particular high zinc oils, that provided such low wear protection capability, would put a
flat tappet engine at extreme risk of failure during and after break-in. And of course
very expensive engine failure is exactly what happened. Selecting a highly ranked oil
from my Wear Protection Ranking List, no matter how much zinc is in it, would have
provided the engine with far better wear protection. With so many other excellent
performing motor oils on the market, it makes no sense to choose oils that are ranked so
low on my list, even if they do have a lot of zinc in them. Because high zinc levels are
absolutely no guarantee of sufficient wear protection. The line of thinking that you
always need a high zinc level, is nothing more than a total MYTH.
.
OIL TEST DATA AND HIGH PERFORMANCE STREET EXPERIENCE ARE
IDENTICAL
.
And here is one example of a flat tappet High Performance Street Hotrod engine
operating just fine with low zinc oils, just as my Test Data predicts. A buddy built a 500
HP, flat tappet, solid lifter, 383ci small block Chevy for his 69 Corvette several years
ago. He asked me what oil he should use to break it in and to use later on as well. He
wanted to use a conventional oil at that time, that was affordable, and readily available.
So, I suggested he use conventional low zinc 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN, that
provided 95,392 psi in my testing, which put it in the OUTSTANDING wear protection
category.
He used that oil from day one with no elaborate break-in procedure at all. He just drove
the car. It is his only car, so it is his daily driver, which he always drives like he stole it.
And he has never had any issue with his cam or lifters. Then maybe a year or so ago he
decided he wanted to switch to a synthetic oil that was affordable and readily available,
so I suggested he go with low zinc synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN, that provided
105,875 psi in my testing, which put it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category.
He has used that oil ever since and still has not had any issue at all with his cam or
lifters. He has tens of thousands of hard Hotrod miles on that cam and lifter combo,
which is far more miles than most weekend only Hotrods will ever see, and he has never
suffered one bit from not using a high zinc oil. So, this is yet another example of the fact
that high zinc oils are NOT needed for sufficient wear protection, even in flat tappet
engines, and not even for break-in. The only thing that matters, is an oils film strength
load carrying capacity. And that is precisely the data my Motor Oil Testing ranks.
*****************
Not only does my oil testing methodology and the resulting data match up EXACTLY
with real world severe over-heating experience, real world race track experience, real
world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance street
experience, but it has also been endorsed by the following well respected Industry
sources:
.
1. An Engineering Ph.D. who is the most highly respected Engineer, Car builder and
Tech Guru on a popular Automotive Forum, asked me if he could include my Oil
Testing Info in a list of Tech Papers written by well respected Industry authors, that he
makes available to enthusiasts. And he told me, Im 100% on board with backing you
with my endorsement on your testing: I run a Propulsion Testing Laboratory for a major
Aerospace Company, so Im in the testing business. Your methods and approach are in
accordance with sound engineering testing methods, and are not arguable by intelligent
people. He also said this about my Oil Testing info, This is excellent stuff, and Ive
already sent copies of this to my engineering colleagues.
.
Then later, even though he had no direct connection to my oil testing, he received hate
mail and threats for backing me. This behavior came from disrespectful people who are
on the wrong side of the facts. They are high zinc level believers, even though the
facts have proven over and over again that the whole idea of depending on high zinc
levels for wear protection, is only an outdated myth. Sadly, discussing motor oil can
become emotionally charged just like Religion and Politics. But, Engineering test data is
NOT determined by emotion, it is determined by the facts that come out of the Physics
and Chemistry involved. After this ordeal, hed had enough, and asked that I no longer
use his name in connection with my oil testing. Of course I respect his wishes and will
no longer mention his name here. I feel bad that he was subjected to this totally uncalled
for behavior. However, these shameful events will have no affect on my ongoing oil
testing. For me, there is no emotion involved with the oil testing I perform. I simply
report the results exactly the way they came out, good or bad.
.
2. A NASCAR engine supplier out of North Carolina (they did not want their name
associated with any Internet motor oil arguments that may come up, so they asked that
their name be left out, which I honored) was so impressed with the motor oil Wear
Protection Capability Testing I perform, that they sent me 3 NASCAR Racing Oils
they use, for testing. They valued my testing efforts enough to include me in what they
do, which is quite an endorsement, considering the Professional level of Racing they are
involved in. They had been seeing some wear issues with those oils, and wanted to see
if I could shed any light on that by testing them. I did test those oils for them, and the
test results showed that those oils did not provide acceptable wear protection capability,
which accounted for the wear problems they were having. So, they have selected other
oils to use, and their wear problems have gone away. If I had tested those oils before
they started using them, I could have saved them time, money and grief.
.
3. The Oil Extreme Oil Company was so impressed with the detail and accuracy of
my oil testing, that they wanted to hire me to perform product development research
testing for them. That was clearly a major endorsement of the testing I perform. But, I
declined taking any money from them, because I wont be tied to any Oil Company by
money. That way I can maintain my independent and unbiased status. I report the test
results just how they come out, good or bad. And there is no way Id allow any Oil
Company to influence anything I report. I did however, agree to perform testing for
them for free, along with other testing I perform. And those results will be posted along
with other test results.
.
In addition to that, my oil test data has also been validated and backed-up by a total of
FOUR other independent Industry sources. They are as follows:
.
1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard, whose own test
data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing, has concluded that more zinc in
motor oil can be damaging, more zinc does NOT provide todays best wear protection,
and that using zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.
.
2. The GM Oil Report titled, Oil Myths from GM Techlink, concluded that high
levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection.
.
3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, More than you ever wanted
to know about Motor Oil, concluded that more zinc does NOT provide more wear
protection, it only provides longer wear protection.
.
4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company:
There is such a thing as too much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much
can be a detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive performance.
Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will tie-up detergents thus
encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate
into more protection. Only so much is utilized. We dont need to saturate our oil with
ZDDP.
Those who are familiar with my test data, know that my test results came up with the
exact same results stated by all four of those independent sources. So, this is an example
where motor oil Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load using oil testing equipment,
engine dyno testing, Motor Oil Industry testing, and proper motor oil research using
only the facts, from a total of five (including my own) independent sources, all
converged to agree and come to the same exact conclusion. Back-up validation proof,
doesnt get any better than this.
.
So, with all those sources in total agreement, that should provide more than enough
proof to anyone, that my data is absolutely correct, and that it DOES NOT come from
flawed methodology, as some have said simply because they didnt like or didnt
understand the results. The fact is, scientific test data is not determined by emotion, it is
determined by the facts that are a result of the Physics and Chemistry involved. And
anyone questioning any one of those sources, questions them all, as well as the Physics
and Chemistry that determined all those identical results. And no sensible person would
try to argue against Physics and Chemistry. Because that is a battle no man can win.
.
******************
.
Of course, many folks, including Enthusiasts, Hotrodders, Racers, Builders, Cam

Companies, etc, have always been conditioned to believe that high zinc levels in motor
oil are a must for sufficient wear protection in High Performance engines. And of course
there are a number of oils available that say something along the lines of Extra Zinc for
Extra Protection. So, a lot of those folks just cannot bring themselves to accept the fact
that high zinc levels are NOT what they are cracked up to be. They feel compelled to
believe the claims on those bottles of oil and the Marketing/Advertising claims made by
the Oil Companies that provide those high zinc oils.
.
But, people need to consider the following. Those Oil Companies are in business to
make money. Thats it. So, they put a product on the market that they feel there is a
demand for, and will make them money. As a result, they will say ABSOLUTELY
ANYTHING, to move that product, which will help their bottom line. So, high zinc
loving people need to stop and consider that for a moment. The Oil Companies have a
vested interest in telling people what they want to hear, so they will buy their oil.
Therefore, they dont hesitate to make misleading claims and false advertising. When it
comes to motor oil, there is no such thing as truth in advertising.
.
Oil Company claims about the benefit of high zinc levels in motor oil is NOT based on
actual fact. Extra zinc cannot physically provide extra wear protection, because zinc
simply DOES NOT work that way. Zinc is used up a little at a time as it is sacrificed to
help protect against wear. More zinc will take longer to become depleted, simply
because there is more there to use up. Its the same idea as more gas in your tank will
take longer to run out, but more gas in your tank cannot physically make more HP.
.
These high zinc motor oil producing Oil Companies NEVER provide any test data to
prove that their high zinc oils always provide better wear protection than ordinary
modern low zinc street oils. They cant do it, because its NOT TRUE. So, high zinc
believers are only embracing smoke and mirrors, nothing else. And actual dynamic
motor oil friction tests under load, PROVE that the need for high zinc levels is simply
NOT TRUE. That is why I started testing motor oil, so that I could separate the facts
from the fiction.
Motor Oil Company Advertising claims are only hype and hot air, but actual test data is
the real thing. If I test a modern low zinc API certified oil against a high zinc oil, and
the modern API certified low zinc oil clearly outperforms the high zinc oil in terms of
wear protection, how can the high zinc lovers honestly believe that the high zinc oil is
better? How could that high zinc oil magically perform better in an engine, when it was
worse in testing? And if I test two high zinc oils, and one does well and one does not,
how can the high zinc lovers believe that all high zinc oils are always good?
.
So, high zinc lovers need to do a little soul searching and ask themselves why they want
to believe something that does NOT stand-up to real world testing? Keep in mind that
testing is so important and valuable, that multi-million dollar corporate decisions are
made, based on test data. Not only that, but Racers test engine and chassis setups at the
track all the time. And they believe what the test results tell them, because thats the
only way they have to know what really works and what doesnt. So, it makes no sense
to disregard oil testing, when virtually all other types of testing are taken as Gospel.
.
.
My Motor Oil Engineering Test Data is breakthrough information that cant be found
anywhere else, which finally allows us to directly compare the wear protection
capability of various motor oils. Engineering Test Data drives the world, yet there are
some high zinc loving critics who just cant understand the value of this Engineering
Test Data. So, they try to tear it down with the emotion that is often found in
discussions of Religion or Politics. But, by them rejecting meaningful motor oil
information, they are only hurting themselves.
In fact, it is quite clear that most of the time, they dont even bother to read the
information I provide. They just make negative comments right off the top, completely
unaware of the information provided. Unfortunately for them, that is their loss, because
they will have to continue selecting their oil based on the incorrect thinking that zinc
level is all they need to know. And in doing so, they will more often than not, end up
with far less wear protection than they think they have, which often results in wiped flat
tappet lobes. Some people are their own worst enemies. However, for technically savvy
folks who do grasp the value of my motor oil film strength/load carrying capability test
data, FACTUAL information is included in the Blog below.
It is not a matter of agreeing with my data or not agreeing with it, because the data used
to create my Wear Protection Ranking List is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my
theory. The data, as mentioned above, is the result of the Physics and Chemistry
involved in the testing. I am only the messenger. The Science is what tells us how these
oils perform. And no sensible person would try to argue against Physics and Chemistry.
Science is absolute whether people like it or not, and emotion cannot change it.
So, think long and hard before believing anything critics say when they try to discredit
my Motor Oil Engineering Test Data. There are always some who try, but fail in their
attempt. They are not actually arguing with me, even if they think they are. They are
actually arguing against the Science of Physics and Chemistry. Who do you think will
win that battle? And ask them how they figure they know more than what the Science of
Physics and Chemistry proves. Ask them what their qualifications are. Ask them what
testing they have ever done.
They are typically high zinc lovers who just cant accept the fact that what theyve
always believed about the need for high zinc oils, is only an Old Wives Tale MYTH.
So, they get upset and go out of their way trying to undermine anything that goes
against what they have been brainwashed to believe about high zinc oils. But, emotion
does not determine the Engineering results of how good any particular oil is.
These naysayers cannot factually back-up anything they say. They think they are motor
oil experts simply because they have done a bunch of Internet reading. They will
sometimes make a big deal about what is in the base oil. They will sometimes provide
links to lame Internet articles, which are often just a lab test of a single individual zinc
component, showing what it did in that particular lab test. But, that is not any actual
motor oil that you buy and pour into your engine. It may be somewhat interesting to
read, but that type of test does not does not take into account the countless formula
variations and synergistic effects found in the actual motor oils that are available on the
market. Therefore, you are only looking at a single data point of a test that is not even
what will end up in your engine. Or in other words, worthless information that many
zinc lovers falsely believe, is the last word on motor oil. That is NOT how Engineering
works. And lot of their lame Internet articles are nothing more than one author copying
from the same worthless source material as other authors.
And if that isnt bad enough, some information they throw out there as Gospel is only
advertising hype from a motor oils bottle or website. As mentioned above, it is no

secret that Motor Oil Companies are among the worst for false advertising. The absolute
worst motor oils on the market, and the absolute best motor oils on the market, make the
same claims about how wonderful they are. So, the claims made on motor oil bottles
and websites would only be taken as truthful, by gullible people who are not
Technically savvy.
Then these naysayers will also sometimes use the oil recommendations from Cam
Companies as support for their position on what oil to use. Problem is, just because
Cam Companies sell cams, does not mean they know the first thing about motor oil.
They are simply staffed by people who are also brainwashed to believe that any high
zinc oil will provide all the wear protection necessary for flat tappet cams. But, the
proof that they are clueless about motor oil, is the fact that even the leading Cam
Companies still have flat tappet lobes getting wiped, when people use the oils they
recommend. And those oils are typically the oils that have tested very poorly in my
Motor Oil Engineering Wear Protection Testing. On top of that, Cam Companies often
do not even employ Degreed Mechanical Engineers. So, it comes as no surprise that
they supply bad information as to what oils to use. Wiped flat tappet lobes continue to
happen over and over again, when people use high zinc oils that produce poor results in
my testing. Its time to take notice of that.
The people who recommend poor performing motor oils, believe if they havent lost a
lobe while using a certain oil, that it must be great oil. But, they just dont know, what
they dont know. That only means the oil they used provided enough protection for
the particular application that didnt fail. But, that does not tell them anything about
how much extra protection they had beyond that. So, their opinion of that oil is not a
good technical evaluation of its capability. That would be like them telling you that an
engine making 750 HP, is good as long as it has rods in it that can withstand 751 HP.
Yeah, it might not throw a rod, or maybe it will. But, no technically savvy person would
want to run a margin of safety that close.
Its the same idea with the oil you choose to run. Dont run an oil with a margin of safety
that close. My Motor Oil Engineering Test Data, allows us see how different oils truly
compare to each other, so we can run a substantial margin of safety to provide the best
possible wear protection for our engines. So, before you consider following the bad
advice others give about the oil they only think is good, read the real world facts
about motor oil in this Oil Test Data Blog, then decide for yourself who is providing
factual motor oil information that you can actually use to your advantage.
People who want the facts about which motor oils are good and which are not so good,
want to see unbiased and independent test data. And that is exactly what my motor oil
film strength/load carrying capability data provides. I back-up everything I say with that
hard Engineering test data that exactly matches real world experience. It matches real
world experience because my test data is the real deal, which accurately predicts what
we can expect from the oils we buy. I test the actual motor oils that we buy and pour
into our engines. So, my test data comes entirely from real on-the-market motor oils,
which is what truly matters.
Its been said that Im the motor oil Police, because I discover and expose false motor
oil claims and misleading motor oil advertising, with my test results that show the
FACTS. I dont sell motor oil, so it doesnt make any difference to me, what oil people
choose to run. But, people need to understand that some high zinc oils do provide very
good wear protection, while many other high zinc oils do not. And without looking at
the test data, you cannot tell which is which, until perhaps its too late. In fact, MANY
WIPED FLAT TAPPET LOBES COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, INCLUDING
DURING BREAK-IN, if people had not blindly believed the MYTH that all high zinc
oils provide all the wear protection they need. Because nothing could be further from
the truth.
.
So, the folks who choose to use only high zinc oils NO MATTER WHAT the test result
FACTS show us, are only fooling themselves. Of course everyone is entitled to their
own opinion. But, ignoring the FACTS is their loss, and depending on the particular oil
they choose, they are likely NOT getting the wear protection they THINK they are. If
you value your engine, wouldnt you prefer to choose the motor oil that can REALLY
provide the best wear protection, based on test data FACTS, rather than the old incorrect
high zinc MYTH? Dont believe what the high zinc lovers say, because they are only
trying to justify what they believe, even though they have NO PROOF what so ever,
to backup what they say. On the other hand, I backup everything I say. So, read the
FACTS, then make your own decision.
.
******************************
.
I was very dissatisfied with the ASTM test procedures I reviewed. Some called for
testing at 100*F (NOT 100*C), which is too COLD and is therefore NOT realistic for
oil in a running engine. An ideal oil sump temperature range in a running engine is
between 215*F and 250*F, though oil temps are not entirely uniform throughout the
engine (more on that below). This range is hot enough to quickly boil off normal
condensation rather than letting it evaporate over time, which can allow it to dilute the
oil. And this range is also low enough to provide sufficient cooling for internal
components, all of which are directly oil cooled, while at the same time staying below
the onset of thermal breakdown in nearly all motor oils. Other ASTM tests called for
testing at 150*C (302*F), which is too HOT and therefore also NOT realistic. Because
every oil Ive ever tested for the onset of thermal breakdown, would already be at or
beyond the threshold of thermal breakdown at 302*F.
So, the Official ASTM test procedures I reviewed for my application, were basically
worthless for finding out the truth when it comes to wear protection capability of motor
oil at realistic temperatures. Being a perfectionist, I was not willing to accept sub-par
test procedures. So, I developed my own test procedure at a realistic 230*F, that works
extremely well with my test equipment, and produces accurate and repeatable results
which are essential for meaningful comparisons between different motor oils. My test
procedure produces the most realistic and useful data available anywhere. And thatis
why I have all those endorsements and validation back-ups, as well as race track
data,flat tappet break-in data, and High Performance street data,that exactly match my
test data. BOTTOM LINE: My test data WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can
expect from a motor oil in a running engine.
.
As mentioned above, motor oil is not the same temperature everywhere inside a running
engine. Typical main bearing oil temps can be 55*-90*F higher than sump temps.
However, main bearing oil under running conditions is not just a film of oil, it is a liquid
wedge of flowing oil (that is why the cooling benefits of better flowing thinner oil are
important here to avoid driving up bearing temps. See the section on viscosity selection
immediately following my Wear Protection Ranking List below). Liquid oil is not
compressible, therefore it completely prevents metal to metal contact (more on that
below). My testing focuses on oil film strength, which is what is critical, and is the last
defense against metal to metal contact. Even so, I also tested a dozen different oils at
275*F to see how their wear protection capability at that higher temp, compared to the
230*F that I normally test at.
.
The oils tested at 275*F consisted of different brands, different viscosities, some low
zinc modern API certified oils, some high zinc Racing/Performance oils, some
synthetic, some conventional, some semi-synthetic, some with low levels of detergent
and some with high levels of detergent. As expected, the wear protection capability psi
values dropped as the oils got hotter and thinner. But for most of the oils, the drop was
not enormous. And the average psi drop for the whole group of oils, was only about
12% from their 230* values. What was also of interest here, was how the ranking of
these dozen oils might change relative to each other, as they got hotter. The result was
that there was some shuffling of the ranking order within the top 10 oils, but all of the
top ten oils were still in the top 10.
.
It was also quite clear by looking at these results, that high zinc levels, high detergent
levels, and heavy viscosities did NOT play any particular roll in how well a motor oil
does or does not provide wear protection. The only thing that matters is the base oil and
its additive package as a whole, with the primary emphasis being on the additive
package, since the additive package is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear
components.
In addition to the testing at 275*F, I also tested a couple of those oils at a much higher
325*F to see how their wear protection capability might change at that temp. It turned
out that their load carrying capacity leveled off and stayed approximately the same
between 275* and 325*, and their ranking relative to each other did not change. So, it is
comforting to know that you dont run into dangerously low wear protection if and
when you end up with overheated oil at some point. But of course the oil will have
already run into thermal breakdown and should be changed as soon as possible.
.
So, all this testing showed that the oil ranking positions did not change significantly
even at higher temps. And that means that my Wear Protection Ranking List below,
which was generated with oil temps at 230*F, is still representative of how the various
oils compare to each other, even at the higher operating temperatures seen in certain
locations of the engine.
.
METHODOLOGY
The test methodology or test procedure I use at a representative operating oil
temperature of 230*F, is a dynamic rubbing friction test under load, which generates a
wear scar on a test specimen that is bathed in the oil being tested. This procedure, which
is performed exactly the same for every motor oil tested, provides excellent
repeatability, which is critical to validate the methodology. And as shown above, my
test data EXACTLY matches real world severe over-heating experience, real world race
track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High
Performance street experience. No matter what any critics may say, with my test data
exactly matching real world experience, that absolutely PROVES and VALIDATES
that my data is the real deal. You cannot get any better than that, so you will not find
better motor oil comparison data anywhere. The test result is pounds of force being
applied over the wear scar area, which is in square inches (the size of that area is of
course is determined by the oils film strength/load carrying capability). So, the result is
pounds per square inch, which of course is just shortened to psi. The better an oils
wear protection capability, the smaller the wear scar will be on the test specimen, and
the higher the resulting psi value will be. Multiple tests are performed on each oil, and
the resulting values are averaged to arrive at the most accurate possible value for
comparison. And the motor oils are ranked, based on the average psi value they
generated.
.
The motor oil Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load I performed to generate my Wear
Protection Ranking List, is worst case torture testing, using oil testing equipment that
is for the record, NOT a One Armed Bandit tester and NOT a 4-Ball Wear Tester.
My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat
tappet race engine ever could. So, since my oil testing compares various oils under
worst case conditions, absolutely no further testing is required in a running engine. If

oils rank higher in my Wear Protection Ranking List than the oil you currently use,
those higher ranked oils will provide a HIGHER LEVEL OF WEAR PROTECTION
than your current oil. Its really that simple.
.
My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engines internal components. On

the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to cause an oil to reach its
failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. And every oil I test is
brought to its failure point, thats how it works. The difference in the failure points, is
what we compare. And in addition to that, my equipments calibration is checked and
adjusted if required, each time the testing switches to a different oil. That keeps the final
results accurate at all times.
.
You will NOT find this many oils tested on the exact same equipment, using the exact
same procedure, using the exact same real world representative operating oil
temperature, by the exact same operator, anywhere else. Therefore, this is the best
apples to apples motor oil comparison you will ever find.
.
But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not
generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the complete difference in
design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and cannot be compared
directly to an engines lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to
oranges, which makes no sense. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at an earlier
point. And that is why my test data psi values may appear lower than you might expect
to see in some running engines. Keep in mind, Im comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and
the procedure used is exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil
stands on its own merit. And if oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing,
then oil A will also offer twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running
engine.
.
The dynamic wear testing under load I use, is intentionally designed to find the
SPECIFIC LIMIT of each individual oils Load carrying capability/film strength/shear
resistance, at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. Or in other words, to
determine each oils wear protection capability psi value, which can be compared to
any other oil tested on the same equipment. As mentioned above, the results that come
out of my testing are NOT my opinion, and they are NOT my theory. They are the
FACTS that come out of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the tests.
.
Performing dynamic wear testing under load, is the ONLY TYPE OF TESTING that
will provide accurate data regarding an oils film strength. Dynamically testing motor
oil under load, is the same concept as dynamically testing an engine under load on a
dyno. That is the only way to truly find accurate performance data of a motor oil, or of
an engine.
.
And obtaining accurate oil film strength data is ABSOLUTELY THE ONLY WAY to
determine an oils wear protection capability, because an oils film strength is the last
line of defense against metal to metal contact. In order to reach metal to metal contact,
and subsequent wear or damage, you MUST penetrate the film strength of the oil. And
oil thicker than a mere film becomes liquid oil. Of course liquids are NOT
compressible, which is how hydraulics work. Since liquids cannot be compressed, ALL
oils provide THE SAME wear protection when they are in liquid form, no matter if they
cost $3.00 per quart or $30.00 per quart. So, oil film strength testing is the GOLD
STANDARD for determining how capable an oil is at preventing wear, and how
different oils directly compare to each other. In other words, the ONLY THING that
separates one oils ability to prevent wear from another oils ability to prevent wear, is
the difference in their individual film strength capabilities.
.
But, testing motor oil in a running engine CANNOT determine the EXACT SPECIFIC
wear protection LIMIT of an oil, which is necessary, in order to make an accurate
comparison between various oils. So, attempting to test various motor oils for
comparison in a running engine, provides no meaningful data, other than perhaps that a
given oil did not cause a failure in that particular engine combo. If you were to test say a
half a dozen different oils in your engine combo, and you had no problems with any of
them, how can you tell how they rank against each other? Its a proven fact that all oils
do not provide the same wear protection capability. That means you have no way of
knowing which of those 6 oils provides you with the highest level of protection.
Therefore, motor oil testing in a running engine, is a waste of time, effort and money,
when it comes to gathering accurate data for comparison between various oils. And that
is precisely why I perform all my testing with motor oil test equipment, rather than in an
engine.
.
And simply looking at an oils zinc level on its Lab Report is of no value at all, because
some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils only
provide poor wear protection. And you have no way to tell which is which by looking at
the zinc level alone. An oils wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and
its additive package as a whole, and NOT just by how much zinc is present.
.
The old claim that you must have a high level of zinc for a high level of protection, is
only a MYTH that has been BUSTED. And no one anywhere, can provide any real
world test data proving that high zinc levels will always protect your engine. Because
zinc simply does NOT work that way, no matter what youve read and heard a million
times. More zinc simply takes longer to be depleted as it is sacrificed and used up while
helping protect heavily loaded parts. Therefore, more zinc provides longer wear
protection, NOT more wear protection. So, if someone tells you that you must have a
high level of zinc for sufficient wear protection, no matter who they are, or no matter
what Company they may represent, DO NOT believe it. Because they are proving that
they DO NOT understand how zinc really works, and are only repeating the same old
wives tale with absolutely NOTHING to back it up.
.
And ZDDP DOES NOT build up on parts like some sort of plating process. ZDDP
simply DOES NOT work that way. ZDDP that is present in the oil, is activated by heat
and pressure, which is precisely what the oil is subjected to during my oil testing
procedure. My testing DOES NOT discount ZDDP levels either. ZDDP is part of the
additive package, and the additive package is what contains the extreme pressure antiwear components. You cannot test oil film strength without also automatically testing
the ZDDP included in that oil at the same time. Since ZDDP is an integral part of an
oils additive package, and the additive package is primarily what creates an oils film
strength, the ZDDP that is present, will be working as well as its chemical composition
allows, during any film strength testing.
.
Ive 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 oils wear
protection capability.
Most major oil companies say to NEVER EVER add anything to their oils, because
doing so will upset the oils carefully balanced additive package that was designed by
their Chemical Engineers. I tested doing that very thing in several different oils, and
found that adding zinc additives in every case, ruined the oils by SIGNIFICANTLY
REDUCING their wear protection capability. That of course, is just the opposite of what
people think they will be getting. So, those major oil Companies were absolutely
correct about not adding anything to their oil. And people who insist on choosing an oil
based on zinc level alone, are very likely shooting themselves in the foot, and ending up
with far LESS wear protection than they THINK they have. It just depends on which
particular oil they select. A number of popular traditional high zinc oils have proven to
provide poor wear protection when actually put to the test.
.
In order for people to choose an oil that truly provides the best possible wear protection
for their engine, they need to select an oil based on its wear protection capability,
NOT its zinc level. Modern API certified oils have reduced zinc/phosphorus levels,
and that now absent quantity of zinc/phosphorus has been replaced with alternate antiwear components that are equal to, or better than zinc/phosphorus. In fact, many of the
modern low zinc oils provide BETTER WEAR PROTECTION than many of the
traditional high zinc oils, which you will see in the ranking list below.
Oil wear protection capability that was tested here, and an oils friction reduction
capability, are two entirely different things. While the test data here provides excellent
information about an oils ability to prevent wear, it says nothing about an oils ability
to reduce friction. So, the data here will not provide any information regarding potential
differences in HP or miles per gallon.
It should also be noted that I do NOT get paid by any Oil Company, nor by any Motor
Oil Retailer, nor do I sell anything myself. So, I have no vested interest in what oil
people choose to run. Therefore, all the data here is totally independent, unbiased, and is
reported exactly how the test results came out. I have no agenda here, other than simply
sharing the FACTS with like-minded gear heads.
.
The ppm (parts per million) quantities of zinc, phosphorus, moly and in some cases
titanium, shown in the ranking list below, are taken directly from the Lab Reports that
came back from the Professional Lab ALS Tribology in Sparks, Nevada. Some oils
have MORE ZINC than phosphorus, while other oils have MORE PHOSPHORUS than
zinc. It just depends on the particular oils formulation. Either way, the numbers below
are correct and are NOT typos.
.
The Load Carrying Capability/Film Strength/Shear Resistance ranking list is from all
the real world motor oil Wear Testing Ive performed so far on new oils. The list
includes modern API certified low zinc oils, traditional high zinc High
Performance/Racing oils, Diesel oils, low zinc oils with zinc additives added in, low
zinc and high zinc oilswith other aftermarket additives added in, and Break-In oils.
.
Test result differences between oils of less than 10% are not significant, and oils within
that range can be considered approximately equivalent.
.
All oil bottles involved in the testing were thoroughly shaken before the samples were
taken. This ensured that all the additive package components were distributed uniformly
throughout all the oil in the bottle, and not settled to the bottom.
.
Lower ranked oils are not necessarily bad, they simply dont provide as much wear
protection capability as higher ranked oils. If you have been running a low ranked oil in
your engine without issue, that does not mean you have switch to a different oil, and it
also does not mean you were using a great oil. It only means that your engines wear
protection needs have not exceeded that oils capability. And as long as your engines
needs dont exceed that oils capability, you will never have a problem. But, if
unexpected circumstances come up that make your engines needs exceed that oils
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 youd been
using an oil with a much higher capability, it could still provide enough extra protection
to save your engine. So, each person has to decide for themselves, which motor oil
provides the wear protection capability they are comfortable with, for any given engine
build.
.
For the test results in the Wear Protection Ranking List, the HIGHER the psi value, the
BETTER the wear protection. And this applies to ALL engines, including ANY High
Performance flat tappet engine. An easy way to use this ranking list, is to find an oil you
are familiar with, then look at the oils ranked higher, which provide better wear
protection, and look at oils ranked lower, which provide less wear protection.
.
Until I started performing Tribology Research, and setup my motor oil Wear Protection
Capability Ranking List, there was no good way to know which oils provided good
wear protection, and which oils didnt. Because its been proven over and over by a
number of sources that zinc levels alone, cannot indicate which oils are good and which
oils are not. The whole high zinc mindset is only Folklore that CANNOT BE PROVEN,
and it DOES NOT stand up to any form of testing. So previously, all we could do was
guess, or use trial and error to determine which oil was good enough, and which oil was
not. And even then, we had no way of knowing how various good enough oils
compared among themselves.
.
You cannot advance your knowledge into the future by clinging to the incorrect thinking
of the past. This is the 21st Century, and we no longer have to guess or use trial and
error to decide on which oil to use. Now, we have documented wear test data available.
So the future is here, and all we have to do is look at the Ranking List, to choose an oil
that provides a wear protection capability level we are comfortable with for any given
build.
.
The Wear Protection test data here DIRECTLY APPLIES to flat tappet lobe/lifter
interfaces (no matter how wicked the engine), pushrod tip/rocker arm interfaces, nonroller tip rocker arm/valve stem tip interfaces, distributor gear/cam gear interfaces,
mechanical fuel pump pushrod tip/cam eccentric interfaces, and all highly loaded engine
interfaces.
.
******************
.
Here are some key points that you will see in the following test results:
* Synthetic oils rank between number 1 and number 157.

.
* Conventional oils rank between number 2 and number 159.

.
* Since the ranking of synthetic oils and conventional oils completely overlap, there is
no clear distinction between their wear protection capabilities.
.
* Ive also tested a number of synthetic, semi-synthetic and conventional gasoline

engine oils for the onset of thermal breakdown. Individually, the synthetic oils that were
tested, varied between 300* F and 210* F. But, on average, the onset of thermal
breakdown for those synthetic oils was 278*F. Individually, the conventional oils varied
between 280* F and 255* F, and the average for those conventional oils was 268*F. So,
as you can see looking at the averages for each type of oil, there was only a 10*
difference, meaning that overall, there is little to no difference in their abilities to
withstand high temps. So, while some individual synthetic oils do well when subjected
to high heat, overall they do not live up to the outrageous claims of some Internet
articles. At the end of the day, the conventional oils tested here, were about the same
regarding their ability to withstand heat, making them a lot better than many people
think. And the average value for the onset of thermal breakdown for all these gasoline
engine oils combined = 275* F. For more specific test data on motor oil thermal
breakdown, see SECTION 3 MOTOR OIL THERMAL BREAKDOWN TEST
DATA.
.
* Also when comparing same viscosity synthetic oils vs conventional oils in a running
engine, using synthetic oils will sometimes result in mechanically noisier engines. This
is NOT a problem and has nothing to do with their wear protection capabilities, nor how
much zinc is present in each oil. It is simply a characteristic difference that will
sometimes show up between the two oil types.
.
* High zinc oils rank between number 4 and number 159, which VERY CLEARLY
shows that simply having a high level of zinc is no guarantee of superior wear
protection. If a high level of zinc was a guarantee of superior wear protection, then all
high zinc oils would rank at the top of the list. But, that simply is NOT the case. And
many wiped flat tappet lobes COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, includingduring
break-in, if people had not blindly believed that all high zinc oils provide all the wear
protection they need. Because nothing could be further from the truth.
.
* Low zinc oils rank between number 1 and number 124.
* Since the low zinc oils and the high zinc oils completely overlap, you can see that zinc
does not play the primary role in determining an oils wear protection capability. An
oils wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package as
a whole, with the primary emphasis on the additive package, which contains the
extreme pressure anti-wear components. And modern alternate extreme pressure
components are equal to, or better than zinc. Tech Author David Vizard calls the use of
zinc as the primary anti-wear component, outdated technology. And that is precisely
what my motor oil Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load found as well.
.
* Ive also tested ZDDPlus zinc additive in 3 low zinc oils, and Ive tested Edelbrock
Zinc additive in 3 different low zinc oils. In each case, the recommended amount of
additive was used. And in all 6 cases, these high zinc additives ruined the oils and made
them WORSE than they were before the extra zinc was added, by SIGNIFICANTLY
reducing their wear protection capabilities. These additives did the opposite of what was
promised. That is not surprising, because most major Oil Companies say to never add
anything to their oils, because doing that will ruin the oil by upsetting the carefully
balanced additive package that their Chemical Engineers designed into them. And that is
precisely what was seen when using these high zinc additives.
.
* However, I have come across an exception to the warning about not adding anything
to motor oil. I tested adding Oil Extreme Concentrate to ordinary 5W30 Pennzoil, API
SN, conventional oil in the yellow bottle. This additive is calcium petroleum sulfontate
based, rather than high zinc based. And after adding the recommended amount (for
street applications) of that additive, it IMPROVED the wear protection capability of that
oil by a whopping 30%.
.
I also added the recommended amount of Oil Extreme Concentrate (for racing
applications) to 10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil, conventional oil.
And it IMPROVED the wear protection capability of that oil by a mind blowing 69%.
.
applications) to 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, semi-synthetic oil. And it
IMPROVED the wear protection capability of that oil by a breath taking 56%
.
applications) to 10W30 Comp Cams Muscle Car & Street Rod Oil, synthetic blend oil.
And it IMPROVED the wear protection capability of that oil by a significant 24%.
applications) to 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (extreme performance racing oil) synthetic
oil. And it IMPROVED the wear protection capability of that oil by 9%.
This Oil Extreme Concentrate ACTUALLY MAKES THE OIL BETTER in terms of
wear protection, and works as advertised in that regard. Obviously, this additive being
calcium petroleum sulfontate based, does not ruin the oil like high zinc based additives
do.
.
There were however, limits to its improvement potential. When the testing was
complete, the conclusion was that oils with around 80,000 psi capability or less,
should experience a SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT from using the Oil Extreme
Concentrate Additive, in terms of improved wear protection capability. But, oils with a
higher capability psi, did not see a benefit.
Prolong Engine Treatment is another motor oil additive that testing showed significantly
improves an oils wear protection capability. I tested it in a full synthetic oil, and two
conventional oils, which as a group, had a wide range for their original ranking
positions. The additive improved the wear protection capability of all 3 oils, on average
by about 46%. But, keep in mind that I only test an oils Wear Protection Capability.
That provides the information that people usually care about most. However, that data is
limited to ONLY wear protection capability, and does NOT provide any information as
to how compatible overall this products chlorine may be with a given oils additive
package. Chlorine and additive package incompatibility has the potential to result in
corrosion issues. Contact Prolongs maker for more information on compatibility.
.
* Diesel oils rank overall between number 18 and 130. But, if you omit the highest
ranked Diesel oil which is FAR, FAR MORE CAPABLE than all the other Diesel oils,
the rest only rank between70 and 130. The poor wear protection performance of all but
the one particular top ranked Diesel oil, makes it very clear that in general, Diesel oils
are a poor choice for High Performance gas engines.
.
* Ive also tested synthetic and conventional Diesel oils for the onset of thermal
breakdown. Individually, the synthetic oils that were tested, varied between 285* F and
255* F. But, on average, the onset of thermal breakdown for those synthetic Diesel oils
was 269*F. Individually, the conventional Diesel oils varied between 265* F and 250*
F, and the average for those conventional oils was 254*F. The average value for the
onset of thermal breakdown for all the tested Diesel oils combined = 261* F.
Comparing the overall averages, you can see that these Diesel oils fell victim to heat
about 14* F earlier than the gasoline engine oils that were tested. So, that is another
reason why using Diesel oils in High Performance gas engines, is a poor choice. For
more specific test data on motor oil thermal breakdown, see SECTION 3 MOTOR
OIL THERMAL BREAKDOWN TEST DATA.
* Break-In oils rank between number 86 and number 159. But, if you omit the highest
ranked Break-In oil which is far more capable than the other Break-In oils, the rest only
rank between 123 and 159. So, if you are looking for outstanding wear protection during
break-in, you will be extremely disappointed with most of these oils. Because they are
not formulated to prevent wear, they are formulated to allow the parts to quickly wear
in, which is totally unnecessary. This is because newly manufactured parts will have a
surface that microscopically looks like peaks and valleys. The loading on those tiny
little peaks, will be EXTREMELY high, because the load is not spread out across
enough surface area to support the load. And no motor oil made by man can stop those
peaks from being very quickly worn down, thus leaving a smoother surface that will
distribute the load across a surface area large enough to support that load.
.
That makes it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to stop parts from wearing-in on their own,
no matter what oil you run. And weve seen that for many years with factory filled
synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1 (which is one of the top ranked oils regarding wear protection
capability) in countless thousands of brand new vehicles, that always break-in and seal
their rings just fine. That means so-called break-in oils are completely unnecessary. And
the poor wear protection provided by most break-in oils, can put a flat tappet engine in
serious danger of wiping lobes. No matter what anyone tells you, for roller lifter engines
or for flat tappet engines (no matter how wicked they may be), it is best to use a highly
ranked oil, no matter how much zinc is in it, for break-in and after break-in. In fact, the
same highly ranked oil can be used for both purposes, meaning you can choose a single
highly ranked oil and stay with it from first fire, on.
.
* 20 wt oils rank between number 24 and 148.

.

.

.

.
* So, as you can see, oil viscosity plays no particular role in an oils wear protection
capability. As mentioned above, an oils wear protection capability is determined by its
base oil and its additive package as a whole, with the primary emphasis on the
additive package, which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components. NOTE:
HTHS (High-Temperature/High-Shear) values DO NOT provide any useful information
about wear protection capability. See article 17 titled, Do HTHS (High-
Temperature/High-Shear) values provide any useful information about wear protection

capability?, for more details.
.
* I generally recommend that people choose a motor oil that is highly ranked to begin
with, that doesnt need any additional help. And to use that oil just as it comes, right out
of the bottle, with no aftermarket additives at all. However, there is also data included
below from testing a few different aftermarket motor oil additives, to provide
information as to how these additives actually work.
.
* FOR THE RECORD, I am NOT connected in any way to the Oil or Oil Additive
Industry. I have absolutely no interest in what products people choose to use. So, I DO
NOT promote any particular oil or oil additive brand. I only report the results that come
out of my testing, good or bad.
.
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

.
ITS WORTH REPEATING THAT SOME KEY POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND

ABOUT THIS TESTING ARE:
.
The psi reference values above, ONLY APPLY TO MY TEST DATA, not to actual
engine component loading. Heres why:
The motor oil Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load I perform is WORST CASE torture
testing. My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engines internal
components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to generate
severe loading, that will quickly cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to
determine what its capability limit it is. The test loading is severe enough, that the wear
scar size that forms, based on an oils load carrying capability (the wear scar is what is
measured), has stabilized at its final size by the conclusion of a 30 second load test.
Procedure development testing showed that more time than that did not change the wear
scar size. Every oil I test is brought to its failure point, thats how it works. The
difference in the failure points, is what we compare. My testing subjects the oil to far
more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine could ever
generate.
.
But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not
generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the COMPLETE
DIFFERENCE in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and
therefore CANNOT be compared directly to an engines lobe/lifter interface pressure.
That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes absolutely no sense at all. My
testing is so severe, that the oil fails at a much earlier point than it would in an engine.
And that is why my test data psi values appear lower than you might expect to see in
some running engines.
.
In addition to that, my equipments calibration is checked and adjusted if required, each

time the testing switches to a different oil. That keeps the final results accurate at all
times. And keep in mind, Im comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and the procedure used is
exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil stands on its own
merit, and produces the best wear protection capability that its chemical composition
allows. If oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing, then oil A will also
provide twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running engine.
.
All the oils were tested at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. A colder
test temperature of less than 212*F would have been too cold, and would have been
below desirable normal operating temperature, as well as being too low to even quickly
boil off natural condensation, which if not quickly eliminated can dilute the oil. A hotter
test temperature of above 250*F, would have been hotter than desirable normal
operating temperature, and would have been so high, that many motor oils would
already have reached the threshold of thermal breakdown. Remember that critical
internal engine components are directly OIL COOLED, and only indirectly water
cooled. So, the oil needs to stay cool enough to actually help cool those components.
Therefore, 230*F is an ideal test temperature to arrive at the most meaningful values for
comparison. Ive also tested oils at 275*F, as well as 325*F, and found that there was
no significant change in the ranking order, which further confirms that the test
temperature of 230*F is absolutely valid, even though operating temperatures vary in
certain locations of an engine.
.
All the oils tested here were brand new oils. But, Ive also tested a number 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, not only is this further proof that the
zinc level is not tied to a motor oils wear protection capability, but it also proves that
testing brand new oil is representative of what we can expect from an oil as time and
mileage accumulate.
.
Im a Mechanical Engineer. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living.

And a Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that
was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between
mechanical components under load.
.
And again, most important of all, is at the end of the day, my test data EXACTLY
MATCHES real world race track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience,
and real world High Performance street experience, which PROVES once and for all,
that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test
results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in
running engines on the track, during flat tappet or rollerbreak-in,or on the street,
EVEN if those oils are high zinc oil. It also bears repeating, that all the data here was
determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. Itis NOT my opinion, and it is
NOT my theory. It is the Science that tells us what is going on with motor oils. And no
one can argue with Physics and Chemistry. So, that should be more than enough proof
to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real
world.
.
The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.
.
===============================================
.
===============================================
.
The WEAR PROTECTION RANKING LIST itself, begins here:
1.Prolong Engine Treatment added to 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN synthetic =
136,658 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the Prolong Engine Treatment added to it, has a wear
protection capability of 92,569 psi. With the recommended amount of Prolong added
per qt, its wear protection capability WENT UP 48%. But, compared to the previous
API SM version of this oil, this mixtures capability went up 18%.
Prolong Engine Treatment motor oil additive worked amazingly well for increasing
wear protection capability in all types of oils, at all ranking levels. But, for most people,
it would be more cost effective to simply choose a highly ranked oil in the first place,
and avoid using any additives at all. However, for heavily loaded race engines, flat
tappet engines, and for flat tappet break-in, where the ultimate in wear protection is
desired, this additive could be worth considering.
But, keep in mind that I only test an oils Wear Protection Capability. That provides
the information that people usually care about most. However, that data is limited to
ONLY wear protection capability, and does NOT provide any information as to how
compatible overall this products chlorine may be with a given oils additive package.
Chlorine and additive package incompatibility has a possible risk of creating damaging
bearing corrosion problems. Contact Prolongs maker for more information on
compatibility to find out if it is safe to use in your application. The test data on Prolong
is included in my Ranking List for informational purposes only. I do not endorse nor
recommend its use.
2.Prolong Engine Treatment added to 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional =

130,366 psi
per qt, its wear protection capability WENT UP 37%.
recommend its use.
.
3.Prolong Engine Treatment added to 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN conventional, (yellow
bottle) = 117,028 psi
per qt, its wear protection capability WENT UP 52%.
recommend its use.
============
NOTE:
5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 115,612 psi
zinc = 806 ppm
phosphorus = 812 ppm
moly = 66 ppm
calcium = 3,011 ppm
TBN = 10.3
This oil was ranked in this position for about a year and a half. But, it is no longer
ranked at all, because it has now been replaced by the newer API SN version. See
below for the SN versions ranking position.
============
4.5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic = 112,464 psi
This Motorcycle Road Racing oil is from France and comes in liter bottles (slightly
more than a quart). At the time this oil was tested in spring 2014, it cost $24.25 per
bottle. And with the shipping cost added to that, the final cost was about $33.00 per
bottle (shipping was all inside the U.S.), making it THE most expensive motor oil Ive
ever tested. But, since this oil is in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category and is
ranked number 1, for oils just as they come, right out of the bottle, with no aftermarket
additives, you could say you at least get the best possible wear protection available, for
that super high price. This is an extremely impressive motor oil just as it comes, right
out of the bottle. So, no aftermarket additives should be used with this oil, because that
would only reduce its capability overall.
zinc = 1724 ppm
moly = 481 ppm
calcium = 3141 ppm
TBN = 7.4
This oil contains sufficient amounts of the components required (detergent, acid
neutralizer, etc) for normal change intervals in street driven vehicles. But, it has way too
much zinc/phos for use in cat equipped vehicles. However, it is well suited for Race
Cars, Street Hotrods and Classic cars.
5.Oil Extreme concentrate added to 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic =
111,570 psi
This oil on its own WITHOUT the Oil Extreme concentrate added to it, has a wear
protection capability of 115,612 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt,
which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability WENT DOWN
3.5%.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD.
moly = TBD
calcium = TBD
TBN = TBD
6.Oil Extreme concentrate added to 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic
= 111,061psi
protection capability of only 71,206 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt,
which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability WENT UP A
BREATH TAKING 56%.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD.
moly = TBD
calcium = TBD
TBN = TBD
7.5W30 Oil Extreme Motor Oil, API SM synthetic (per the Oil Company, even though
synthetic wording is not shown on the label) = 110,286 psi
The Company claims this oil contains their proprietary formula of calcium petroleum
sulfontate EP (Extreme Pressure) technology that is NOT found in any other motor oil.
They also claim that it will provide 5 to 7 more HP, 7 to 10% better fuel mileage, cut
engine wear in half, and will extend drain intervals two or three times safely. This oil is
endorsed and promoted by Tech Author David Vizard. And he was so impressed by this
oils performance that he also became a share holder in the Company. The results from
the Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load performed here, fully supports their claim
regarding wear protection. So, their hype about that, turned out to be absolutely true.
And since this oil beat nearly every high zinc oil Ive ever tested, it also proved another
one of their claims, that using zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated
technology.
zinc = 765 ppm
moly = 52 ppm
calcium = 7,652 ppm
TBN = 23.2
8.5W30 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage, API SN, synthetic blend (red bottle) =
108,045 psi
High Mileage oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them.
And High Mileage oils include Seal Swell chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in
those older engines.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus =TBD
moly = TBD
9.10W30 Lucas Racing Only synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
moly = 1764 ppm
calcium = 2,929 ppm
TBN = 9.0
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street
use.
10.CFS 0W30 NT Millers Nanodrive Racing Oil, API SM synthetic = 105,907 psi
This oil is from England, comes in liter bottles (slightly more than a quart), and it uses a
nanotechnology formulation. At the time this oil was tested in fall 2013, it cost $22.45
per bottle. And with the shipping cost added to that, the final cost was about $28.00 per
bottle (shipping was all inside the U.S.), making it one of the most expensive oils Ive
ever tested.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
calcium = TBD
TBN = TBD
11.5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 105,875 psi
zinc = 801 ppm
moly = 112 ppm
calcium = 799 ppm
TBN = 7.5
12.Oil Extreme concentrate added to 10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic HiPerformance Oil conventional = 105,758 psi
which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability WENT UP A
MIND BLOWING 69%.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD
moly = TBD
calcium = TBD
TBN = TBD
13.0W30 Amsoil Signature Series 25,000 miles, API SN synthetic = 105,008 psi
zinc = 824 ppm
moly = 161 ppm
calcium = 3,354 ppm
TBN = 11.4
14.5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic = 104,487 psi
The bottle says it is formulated specifically for high output GM LS engines, and that no
ZDDP or additives required. This is by far, the best performing Joe Gibbs oil Ive ever
tested. It is at the very top of the OUTSTANDING wear protection category, and fell
just short of the INCREDIBLE wear protection category.
zinc = 1610 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
calcium = 3515 ppm
TBN = 8.8
15.10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
moly = 784 ppm
calcium = 1,607 ppm
TBN = 4.4
use. Since this testing was performed, Valvoline has discontinued this oil.
16.5W50 Motorcraft, API SN synthetic = 103,517 psi
zinc = 606 ppm
moly = 28 ppm
calcium = 1,710 ppm
TBN = 6.7
17.10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
calcium = 2,707 ppm
TBN = 7.6
18.5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil synthetic, API CI-4 PLUS, CF,
SL, ACEA A3/B3, E2, E3, E5, E7 = 102,642 psi
This is BY FAR, the highest ranked Diesel oil I have ever tested. This oil is Engineered
for Diesel engines not equipped with Diesel particulate filters (DPF). Amsoil says this
oil delivers better wear protection than other popular Diesel oils. And in this case, their
hype is absolutely true. They also say it effectively reduces fuel consumption, with its
advanced fuel efficient formula. This oil costs $11.15 per quart in the 2013 Amsoil
Factory Direct Retail Catalog, which is 10% more than Amsoils 5W40 Premium
Synthetic Diesel Oil. So, in this case, you pay only 10% more for the Amsoil Series
3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil, but you get a whopping 33% more wear protection than
you get with the Amsoils 5W40 Premium Synthetic Diesel Oil. Money very well spent,
if you run a Diesel oil intended for engines not equipped with Diesel particulate filters.
The next highest ranked Diesel oil ranks far lower on the ranking list. So, this 5W30
Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil is in a class of its own, among all the Diesel
oils I have tested.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
19. 5W30 Pennzoil High Mileage Vehicle, API SN, conventional = 102,402 psi
zinc = TBD
phos =TBD
moly = TBD
20.Oil Extreme concentrate added to 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 102,059 psi
3.6%.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD.
moly = TBD
calcium = TBD
TBN = TBD
21.10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
moly = 162 ppm
calcium = 2,664 ppm
TBN = 7.4
22.Oil Extreme concentrate added to 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN conventional, (yellow
which is the bottles instruction for street driven vehicles, its wear protection capability
WENT UP A WHOPPING 30%.
zinc = 970 ppm
phosphorus = 749 ppm, this value is 91 ppm lower than the basic oil because the
concentrate has less phosphorus in it, which diluted the overall ppm count of the
mixture.
moly = 285 ppm
calcium = 4,443 ppm
TBN = 18.8
23.5W30 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional (blue bottle) = 100,011 psi
This oil only cost $4.29 per quart at an Auto Parts Store when I bought it.
zinc = 1018 ppm
phos = 728 ppm
moly = 161 ppm

24.5W20 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic (gold bottle) = 99,983 psi
zinc = 1042 ppm
phos = 857 ppm
moly = 100 ppm
titanium = 49 ppm
25.5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability WENT UP
29%.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
27.5W30 Pennzoil Ultra Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural
gas, API SN = 99,039 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a dark gray bottle with a blue vertical
stripe on the label.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
28.Oil Extreme concentrate added to 5W30 Oil Extreme Motor Oil, API SM synthetic
= 98,396 psi
11%.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
its wear protection capability WENT UP 27%.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
30.10W30 Amsoil Dominator Racing Oil synthetic = 97,118 psi
zinc = 1613 ppm
phos = 1394 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
its wear protection capability WENT UP 26%.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
32.20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 96,514 psi
zinc = 610 ppm
phos = 754 ppm
moly = 94 ppm
33.30 wt Red Line Race Oil synthetic = 96,470 psi
zinc = 2207 ppm
phos = 2052 ppm
moly = 1235 ppm
use.
34.0W20 Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy, API SN synthetic = 96,364 psi
zinc = 742 ppm
phos = 677 ppm
moly = 81 ppm
35.5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN synthetic = 95,920 psi
zinc = 877 ppm
phos = 921 ppm
moly = 72 ppm
zinc = 818 ppm
phos = 883 ppm
moly = 90 ppm
titanium = 44 ppm
37.10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil synthetic = 95,543 psi
zinc = 743 ppm
phos = 802 ppm
moly = 1125 ppm
use.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
NOTE: The two oils above were tested weeks apart, but due to the similarities in their
wear scar sizes, their averages ended up the same.
zinc = 830 ppm
phos = 791 ppm
moly = 1 ppm
40.10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
moly = 52 ppm
41.5W30 Havoline, API SN conventional = 95,098 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
42.5W30 Valvoline SynPower, API SN synthetic = 94,942 psi
zinc = 969 ppm
phos = 761 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
43.Oil Extreme concentrate added to 5W30 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional
(blue bottle) = 94,864 psi
5.1%.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD.
moly = TBD
44.5W30 Valvoline Premium Conventional, API SN = 94,744 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
zinc = 764 ppm
phos = 698 ppm
moly = 76 ppm
46.5W20 Valvoline SynPower, API SN synthetic = 94,460 psi
zinc = 1045 ppm
phos = 742 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
47.10W40 Mobil 1 Racing 4T, four stroke Motorcycle oil, synthetic = 93,661 psi
This oil claims to meet or exceed API SN.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
48.5W30 Eneos, API SN, synthetic = 93,135 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
49.5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN synthetic = 92,569 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The older API SM version of this oil, produced a wear protection capability value of
115,612 psi.
50.5W30 Lucas, API SN conventional = 92,073 psi
zinc = 992 ppm
phos = 760 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
51.5W30 OReilly (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
52. 5W30 Castrol GTX High Mileage, API SN, synthetic blend = 91,404 psi
zinc = TBD
phos =TBD
moly = TBD
53.5W30 Maxima RS530 Synthetic Racing Oil = 91,162 psi
zinc = 2162 ppm
phos = 2294 ppm
moly = 181 ppm

54.5W30 Red Line, API SN synthetic = 91,028 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
55.5W20 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 90,434 psi
zinc = 964 ppm
phos = 892 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
56.10W30 Quaker State Defy High Mileage, API SL semi-synthetic = 90,226 psi
Defy has always been a High Mileage oil since it was first introduced. But, High
Mileage hasnt always been prominently displayed on the front label. Newer bottles do
now prominently display High Mileage on the front label. High Mileage oils are
formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils
include Seal Swell chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm
moly = 99 ppm
57.10W60 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
58.5W20 Valvoline Premium Conventional, API SN = 90,144 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
59.Oil Extreme concentrate added to 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional =
89,659 psi
protection capability of 95,392 psi. But, with 2.0 OZ of concentrate added per qt, which
is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability WENT DOWN 6%.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD.
moly = TBD
60.5W30 Havoline, API SN synthetic = 89,406 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
61.5W30 Penrite 10 Tenths Racing 5, synthetic = 88,992 psi
This oil comes from Australia in 1 liter bottles (slightly more than a quart), and can be
ordered in the U.S. from Summit Racing Equipment. It claims low friction for max
power, and says it is not suitable for motorcycles with wet clutches. It also claims to
have a full zinc formula.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
62.30 wt Castrol Heavy Duty, API SM conventional = 88,089 psi
zinc = 907 ppm
phos = 829 ppm
moly = 56 ppm
63. 5W30 Mobil 1 High Mileage, API SL, synthetic = 88,081 psi
zinc = TBD
phos =TBD
moly = TBD
64.20W50 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 87,930 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
65.5W30 Valvoline Nextgen 50% Recycled Oil, API SN conventional = 87,563 psi
zinc = 947 ppm
phos = 778 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
66.5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API
SN = 87,241 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a silver bottle with a blue vertical stripe
on the label.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
67.5W50 Mobil 1, API SN, synthetic = 86,456 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
68.10W30 Joe Gibbs HR4 Hotrod Oil synthetic = 86,270 psi
zinc = 1247 ppm
phos = 1137 ppm
moly = 24 ppm
69.5W20 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 86,034 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
70.15W40 RED LINE Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O = 85,663 psi
zinc = 1615 ppm
phos = 1551 ppm
moly = 173 ppm

71.5W30 Castrol Edge w/Syntec, API SN, synthetic (formerly Castrol Syntec), (black
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
72.20W50 Millers Classic Performance Oil, API SJ, conventional = 84,764 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
Claims high ZDDP level. It comes from England in 1 Liter bottles, which is slightly
more than a quart, and is available in the U.S.
73.5W30 Schaeffers Supreme 9000, API SN, synthetic = 84,118 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
zinc = 942 ppm
phos = 817 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
zinc = 588 ppm
phos = 697 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
76.20W50 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
77.5W30 Mobil 1 Extended Performance 15,000 mile, API SN synthetic = 83,263 psi
zinc = 890 ppm
phos = 819 ppm
moly = 104 ppm

zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
79.0W40 Mobil 1, API SN, European Formula, made in the U.S., synthetic = 82,644 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
80.0W40 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN, synthetic = 81,863 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
zinc = 1784 ppm
phos = 1539 ppm
moly = 598 ppm

82.Oil Extreme concentrate added to 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (extreme performance
racing oil) synthetic = 81,723 psi
which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability WENT UP 9%.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
83.0W30 Mobil 1, API SN, Advanced Fuel Economy, synthetic = 81,240 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD.
moly = TBD
84.5W30 Peak, API SN synthetic = 80,716 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
85.5W30 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
86.30wt Amsoil Break-In Oil conventional = 78,192 psi
zinc = 2051 ppm
phos = 1917 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
87.20W50 Resolute Racing Oil, API SN conventional = 77,554 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil cost only $2.49 per quart when bought for this test. It is a Regional Oil from the
Mid-Western U.S. farm country.
88.5W40 Amsoil Premium Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CF, SN, SM,
ACEA E7, E9 = 77,207 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
89.10W30 Renegade Pro Series Racing Oil, synthetic blend = 77,136 psi
zinc = TBD, but bottle claims over 3000 ppm
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
90.15W40 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
91.5W30 Pennzoil, API SN, conventional (yellow bottle) = 76,989 psi
zinc = 839 ppm
phos = 840 ppm
moly = 267 ppm

92.10W40 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional (blue bottle)= 76,806 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
93.5W30 Lucas API SM synthetic = 76,584 psi
zinc = 1134 ppm
phos = 666 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
94.5W30 GMs AC Delco dexos 1 API SN semi-synthetic = 76,501 psi
zinc = 878 ppm
phos = 758 ppm
moly = 72 ppm
95.5W30 Motul 8100 X-clean, API SM, synthetic = 76,166 psi
This oil is made in France, and comes in a 1 liter bottle, which = 1.05 qts
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
For reference, 5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic, produced a wear
protection capability of 112,464 psi
96.20W50 Mobil 1 V-Twin 4 Cycle Motorcycle Oil, API SJ, synthetic = 75,855 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
97.5W50 Castrol Edge with Syntec API SN, synthetic, (formerly Castrol Syntec), (black
zinc = 1252 ppm
phos = 1197 ppm
moly = 71 ppm
98.Oil Extreme concentrate added to 10W30 Comp Cams Muscle Car & Street Rod
Oil semi-synthetic = 74,874 psi
which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability WENT UP AN
IMPRESSIVE 24%.
zinc = TBD
phosphorus = TBD.
moly = TBD
99.5W30 Royal Purple XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) synthetic = 74,860 psi
zinc = 1421 ppm
phos = 1338 ppm
moly = 204 ppm

100.15W40 Cenpeco (Central Petroleum Company) S-3 Diesel Oil, conventional, API
CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF, CE, CD, SL, SJ, SH = 74,593 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
101.5W40 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
102.0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil = 73,811 psi
zinc = 1676 ppm
phos = 1637 ppm
moly = 1263 ppm

103.5W30 Peak, API SN conventional = 73,690 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
104.5W30 Mobil Super Synthetic, API SN = 73,601 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
105.5W30 Castrol GTX Magnatec, API SN, synthetic blend = 73,566 psi
This oil claims to have molecules that cling to parts, forming an extra layer of protection
during warm-up, reducing engine wear.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
106.15W40 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
107.15W40 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
108.15W40 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
109.5W30 Amalie Elixir Oil, API SN, synthetic = 72,825 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
110.15W40 NEW SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4
Plus, CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM = 72,022 psi
zinc = 1454 ppm
phos = 1062 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
111.Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 Nitro 70 Racing Oil semi-synthetic = 72,003 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
112.0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil = 71,923 psi
zinc = 1693 ppm
phos = 1667 ppm
moly = 1326 ppm

113.0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, partial synthetic = 71,377 psi
zinc = 1621 ppm
phos = 1437 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
114.15W40 OLD SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH = 71,214 psi
zinc = 1171 ppm
phos = 1186 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
Yes its true, the old Rotella actually has LESS zinc than the new Rotella.
zinc = 1557 ppm
phos = 1651 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
116.15W40 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
zinc = 1,133 ppm
phos = 1,168 ppm
moly = 83 ppm
118.10W40 Resolute All Season Motor Oil, API SN conventional = 69,709 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil cost $2.49 per quart when bought for this test. It is a Regional Oil from the
Mid-Western U.S. farm country.
119.5W40 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
120.5W40 Liqui Moly Leichtlauf High Tech Oil, synthetic = 69,580 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil is made in Germany and is available in the U. S. It comes in 1 Liter bottles
which is slightly more than a quart.
121.0W40 Castrol Edge with Syntec, API SN, synthetic, European Formula, made in
Belgium and sold in the U.S.,(black bottle) = 69,307 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
122.0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec, API SL, synthetic, European Formula, made in
Germany and sold in the U.S.,(black bottle)= 69,302 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
123.30wt Edelbrock Break-In Oil conventional = 69,160 psi
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm
moly = 4 ppm
124.5W30 Motorcraft, API SN synthetic = 68,782 psi
zinc = 796 ppm
phos = 830 ppm
moly = 75 ppm
125.10W40 Edelbrock synthetic = 68,603 psi
zinc = 1193 ppm
phos = 1146 ppm
moly = 121 ppm
This oil is manufactured for Edelbrock by Torco.

126.5W30 Toyota Motor Oil, API SN conventional = 68,069 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
127.5W40 SHELL ROTELLA T6 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH4, SM, SL = 67,804 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
128.10W30 Champion Racing Oil, synthetic blend = 67,239 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
129.15W40 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
130.15W40 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
131.10W30 Royal Purple HPS (High Performance Street), synthetic = 66,211 psi
zinc = 1774 ppm
phos = 1347 ppm
moly = 189 ppm

132.10W40 Valvoline 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil, API SJ, conventional = 65,553 psi
zinc = 1154 ppm
phos = 1075 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
133.15W40 Swepco 306 Supreme Formula Engine Oil, with Dimonyl, conventional,
API CI-4/SL, CF-2 = 65,185 psi
This oil is from Southwestern Petroleum Corporation.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
134.5W30 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL, synthetic = 64,175 psi
zinc = 1765 ppm
phos = 2468 ppm
moly = 339 ppm

135.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 oils chemical composition. And that is precisely what we see
here. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oils wear prevention
capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
136.5W30 PurOl Elite Series, synthetic = 63,282 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
137.Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil, conventional = 62,931 psi
zinc = 1170 ppm
phos = 1039 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
138.10W40 Crane Cams Break-In Oil, conventional = 62,603 psi
zinc = TBD, but claims high zinc formula
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
139.10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil, conventional = 62,538 psi
zinc = 2116 ppm
phos = 1855 ppm
moly = 871 ppm

140.5W30 Motul 8100 ECO-nergy, API SL, synthetic = 61,880 psi
This oil is made in France, and comes in a 1 liter bottle, which = 1.05 qts
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
For reference, 5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic, produced a wear
protection capability of 112,464 psi
141.0W20 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL, synthetic = 60,941 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
142.10W30 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.

143.10W40 Torco TR-1 Racing Oil with MPZ, conventional = 59,905 psi
zinc = 1456 ppm
phos = 1150 ppm
moly = 227 ppm

144.10W40 Summit Racing Premium Racing Oil, API SL = 59,483 psi
This oil is made for Summit by I.L.C.
zinc = 1764 ppm
phos = 1974 ppm
moly = 41 ppm
NOTE: This oil line was discontinued in Spring 2013.

145.10W40 Edelbrock, conventional = 59,120 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

146.10W40 Spectro Motor-Guard High Performance Motorcycle Oil, API SL,
conventional = 57,977 psi
zinc = 1800 ppm (claimed on bottle)
phos = 1800 ppm (claimed on bottle)
moly = TBD
zinc = TBD, but the bottle claims high zinc
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
149.ZDDPlus added to OReilly (house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional = 56,728
psi
BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY
REDUCED this oils wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was
promised.
150.ZDDPlus added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 56,243 psi

promised.
151.30wt Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, Break-In Oil, conventional = 56,020 psi
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
152.0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil = 55,080 psi
zinc = 1952 ppm
phos = 1671 ppm
moly = 1743 ppm

153.Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, synthetic =
54,044 psi

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 oils wear
prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
154.10W30 Comp Cams Break-In Oil, conventional = 51,749 psi
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm
moly = 180 ppm

155.Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional = 51,545
psi
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 oils
wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
156.15W50 Joe Gibbs Driven BR Break-In oil, conventional = 51,299 psi
NOTE: Total Seal also sells this Break-In Oil with their label on it.
zinc = TBD, but high levels are claimed on the bottle.
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
157.Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 50,202
psi
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.
158.30wt Lucas Break-In Oil, conventional = 49,455 psi
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
159.5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven BR30 Break-In Oil, conventional = 47,483 psi
zinc = TBD, but high levels are claimed on the bottle.
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
=====================
.
====================
.
SECTION 2 MOTOR OIL VISCOSITY SELECTION
THE BENEFITS OF USING THINNER OIL:
Thinner oil flows quicker at cold start-up to begin lubricating critical engine
components much more quickly than thicker oil can. Most engine wear takes place
during cold start-up before oil flow can reach all the components. So, quicker flowing
thinner oil will help reduce start-up engine wear, which is actually reducing wear
overall.
The more free flowing thinner oil at cold start-up, is also much less likely to cause the
oil filter bypass to open up, compared to thicker oil. Of course if the bypass opened up,
that would allow unfiltered oil to be pumped through the engine. The colder the ambient
temperature, and the more rpm used when the engine is cold, the more important this
becomes.
Thinner oil also flows more at normal operating temperatures. And oil FLOW is
lubrication, but oil pressure is NOT lubrication. Oil pressure is only a measurement of
resistance to flow. Running thicker oil just to up the oil pressure is the wrong thing to
do, because that only reduces oil flow/lubrication. Oil pressure in and of itself, is NOT
what we are after.
The more free flowing thinner oil will also drain back to the oil pan quicker than
thicker oil. So, thinner oil can help maintain a higher oil level in the oil pan during
operation, which keeps the oil pump pickup from possibly sucking air during braking
and cornering.
The old rule of thumb that we should have at least 10 psi for every 1,000 rpm is
perfectly fine to use as an approximate general guideline, but it is not an absolute
requirement. It is best to run the thinnest oil we can, that will still maintain
approximately the old rule of thumb oil pressure, but it does not have to be exact. And
using thicker oil just to achieve much more oil pressure than that, will simply reduce oil
flow for no good reason. The oil pump relief valve determines the max oil pressure an
engine can make, no matter what the oil viscosity is. And in some engines, the relief
valve limits oil pressure to a max of 65 psi. But, that does not mean the engines redline
has to be limited to exactly 6,500 rpm because of that. Oil pressure does NOT determine
the engines redline, the mechanical design of the engine does.
Plain bearings, such as rod and main bearings, are lubricated by oil flow, not by oil
pressure. Oil pressure is NOT what keeps these parts separated. Oil pressure serves only
to supply the oil to this interface. The parts are kept apart by the incompressible
hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge that is formed as the liquid oil is pulled in between the
spinning parts. As long as sufficient oil is supplied, no wear can occur. And the higher
flow rate of thinner oil, supplies more oil volume to the main and rod bearings, which
helps ensure that the critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge is
maintained. So, one of the benefits of running a high volume oil pump, is that it will
allow us to enjoy all the benefits of running thinner oil, while still maintaining
reasonable oil pressure. A high volume oil pump/thinner oil combo is preferred over
running a standard volume oil pump/thicker oil combo. Because oil flow is our goal
for ideal oiling, NOT simply high oil pressure.
Oil flow is what carries heat away from internal engine components. Those engine
components are DIRECTLY oil cooled, but only INdirectly water cooled. And better
flowing thinner oil will keep critical engine components cooler because it carries heat
away faster than slower flowing thicker oil can. This is especially important with plain
main and rod bearings, since the flow of oil through the bearings is what cools them. If
you run thicker oil than needed, you will drive up engine component temps.
Here are some comparison numbers from an 830 HP road race engine on the track:
15W50 oil = 80 psi = 265* oil sump temperature
5W20 oil = 65 psi = 240* oil sump temperature
Here you can see how the thicker oil flowed more slowly through the bearings, thus
getting hotter, driving up bearing temperatures and increasing sump temperatures. And
the thinner oil flowed more freely and quickly through the bearings, thus cooling and
lubricating them better than thicker oil, while also reducing sump temperatures.
Heres some additional background on all this You might be surprised by how much
heat can be generated just from an oils internal friction, though friction may not the
best term to use here. It is probably better to think of this as the heat generated due to
the shearing action taking place within the oil.
It is the shearing action of the oil between the crank and bearings, while the engine is
under a heavy loading condition, that generates the bearing heat that we are concerned
with. The oil wedge formed as the crank pulls oil around as it spins, is liquid oil. And
since liquids cannot be compressed, the oil wedge itself is what carries that heavy
engine loading (oil pressure serves only to deliver oil to the crank/bearing interface) and
prevents the crank and bearings from coming in contact with each other, once the engine
is running. Cold start up after sitting, is when the bearings and crank start out in contact
with each other.
The difference in flow rate, and the difference in shearing generated heat, is why the
viscosity used, makes a difference in bearing and sump temperatures. Thicker oil which
flows more slowly and generates more heat from shearing, it is not carrying heat away
and cooling the bearings as well or as quickly as it could, so that drives up bearing
temps. This in turn, causes hotter oil to be coming out of the bearings and into the sump,
which is why we see higher temps on a gauge. That is the opposite of what we want.
On the other hand, quicker flowing thinner oil, not only generates less heat from
shearing, but it also carries heat away much quicker, keeping bearing temps down. And
this means the oil coming out from the bearings, and going into the sump, is also cooler.
And that is why we see the cooler sump temps. This is precisely what we saw with the
road race engine example above.
If an engine is running hot, use a thinner oil to increase flow, increase internal
component cooling, and help keep sump temperatures down. Keeping oil temps down is
important to help keep oil below the threshold of thermal breakdown.
Thinner oil will typically increase HP because of less viscous drag and reduced
pumping losses, compared to thicker oils. That is why very serious Race efforts will
generally use watery thin oils in their engines. But, an exception to this increase in HP
would be in high rpm hydraulic lifter pushrod engines, where thinner oil can allow the
lifters to malfunction at very high rpm. In everyday street vehicles, where fuel
consumption is a consideration, thinner oils will also typically increase fuel economy.
The majority of new cars sold in the U.S. now call for 5W20 specifically for increased
fuel economy. And now Diesel trucks are increasingly calling for 5W30, also for fuel
economy improvement.
With the exception of high rpm hydraulic lifter pushrod engines, almost no engine
should ever need to run oil thicker than a multi-viscosity 30 weight. The lower the first
number cold viscosity rating, the better the cold flow. For example, 0W30 flows WAY
better cold than 20W50. And 0W30 flows WAY better cold than straight 30wt, which is
horrible for cold start-up flow and should be avoided at all cost. And the lower the
second number hot viscosity rating, the better the hot flow. For example, 0W30 flows
WAY better hot than 20W50.
* The churning action of rotating and reciprocating internal engine components, along
with oil spraying out from between pressurized components, traditional oil pumps with
their old-tech spur gear design, old tech oil pressure relief valves, and overall windage,
all contribute in varying degrees, to causing the engine oil to become aerated, which is
exhibited by air bubbles/foam in the oil. Air bubble-filled foamy oil, is what typically
causes engines running on a dyno to experience oil pressure drops, assuming they have
acceptable oil drain-back from the top end, and are keeping the oil pump pickup
submerged. Also, air bubble-filled foamy oil,is what typically causes engines being run
hard in cars, to experience drops in oil pressure, assuming the oil pump pickup is still
submerged in oil. And if that isnt bad enough, air bubble-filled, foamy oil cannot
lubricate critical internal components properly. For proper lubrication of critical
components, you need incompressible liquid oil, NOT compressible air bubble-filled
foamy oil.
This is an issue to take very seriously, if you want to provide your engine with the best
possible lubrication protection. If this aerated oil issue is bad enough, it can cause wear,
damage or outright engine failure. And it can be extremely difficult to diagnose, in the
event of an outright engine failure. Because when you take the engine apart for
examination, you typically cant find anything wrong at all, other than say the rod
and/or main bearings that failed. Thats because the air bubbles/foam are long gone by
then.
You cant do much about the churning action of rotating and reciprocating internal
engine components, nor can you do much about the oil spraying out from between
pressurized components. Though you can try to reduce windage problems by selecting
the best oil pan designs. You can also select a superior smoother flowing gerotor oil
pump design with its internal bypass relief valve. But, the one thing that is the easiest to
change to reduce engine oil aeration concerns, is to choose the proper engine oil
viscosity.
Heavy thick oils such as 5W50 and 20W50, that are of course 50 weight oils at normal
operating temperature, are slower to release and eliminate air bubbles/foam, than thinner
oils such as 5W30 and 10W30 that are 30 weight oils at normal operating temperature.
Motor oils do of course contain anti-foaming agents to help control (though not
altogether eliminate) air bubbles/foam. But, the air bubbles that will still be present in
the oil anyway, have to travel through the oil to be released. And thicker heavier oils
slow down that process, leaving compromised lubrication. Adding aftermarket oil
treatments that thicken the oil more, makes aeration issues even worse, by causing
further slowing of air bubble release. Data on this is not widely published, so I have
future testing planned that will provide much needed test data on this subject. But in the
meantime, keep in mind that thinner oils such as 5W30 and 10W30, allow air bubbles to
travel through the oil and be released quicker, making them a better viscosity choice to
fight motor oil aeration issues, and provide the best possible lubrication protection for
your engine.
Thicker oil DOES NOT automatically provide better wear protection than thinner oils.
Extensive dynamic wear testing under load of over 150 motor oils, has shown that the
base oil and its additive package as a whole, is what determines an oils wear
protection capability, NOT its viscosity. For example, some 5W20 oils have proven to
provide OUTSTANDING wear protection, while some 15W50 oils have only been able
to provide MODEST wear protection. So, do not run thicker oil under the false
assumption that it can provide better wear protection for our engines.
BOTTOM LINE: Thinner oils are better for most engine lubrication needs.
.
====================
.
====================
.
SECTION 3 MOTOR OIL THERMAL BREAKDOWN TEST DATA
Thermal breakdown is the point at which the composition of the oil begins to change due
to the temperature its exposed to.
The official test for this is called the NOACK Volatility Test. In this test, the oil is
heated to 302* F for one hour. The lighter oil fractions will vaporize, leaving thicker
and heavier oil, contributing to poor circulation, reduced fuel economy, increased oil
consumption, increased wear and increased emissions. This of course means that any
motor oil that has been heated above its onset of thermal breakdown point, should be
changed as soon as possible.
The test reports results in the percentage, by weight, lost due to volatilization. Before
July 1, 2001, 5W-30 motor oil in the United States could lose up to 22 percent of its
weight and still be regarded as passable. Now, with GF-4, the maximum NOACK
volatility for API licensing is 15 percent. European standards limit high quality oils to a
maximum of 13 percent loss.
To find out how an assortment of oils actually perform in the real world, I heated the
following oils, and below are the approximate temperatures (rounded to the nearest 5*
increment) at which each oil started to vaporize/smoke, which indicated the onset of
thermal breakdown:
SYNTHETIC GASOLINE ENGINE OILS:
10W30 Amsoil Dominator Racing Oil, synthetic = 300* F
10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil, synthetic = 300* F
5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic = 290* F
0W30 Mobil 1, API SN, Advanced Fuel Economy, synthetic = 290* F

0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SL, European Formula, synthetic,
made in Germany and sold in the U.S. = 290* F
0W40 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SN, European Formula, synthetic,
made in Belgium and sold in the U.S. = 290* F
10W30 Lucas Racing Only, synthetic = 290* F
5W50 Mobil 1, API SN, synthetic = 290*F
5W30 Motul 300V, Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic = 285* F
0W40 Mobil 1, API SN, European Formula, synthetic, made in the U.S. = 285* F
5W30 Royal Purple XPR, synthetic = 285* F
5W30 Mobil Super Synthetic, API SN = 285*F
10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil, synthetic = 280* F
5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM, synthetic = 280* F
5W20 Castrol Edge w/Titanium, API SN, synthetic = 280* F
0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 280* F
5W50 Motorcraft, API SN, synthetic = 275* F
0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 270* F
5W30 Mobil 1, API SN, synthetic = 265* F
0W40 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN, synthetic = 260* F
5W30 Oil Extreme Motor Oil, API SM, synthetic = 255* F
5W30 PurOl Elite Series, synthetic = 255*F
0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 210* F, and this is NOT a typo
.
SEMI-SYNTHETIC GASOLINE ENGINE OILS:

0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, semi-synthetic = 280* F
5W30 Castrol GTX Magnatec, synthetic blend = 260*F
10W30 Renegade Pro Series Racing Oil, synthetic blend = 250* F
.
CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE ENGINE OILS:
5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional= 280* F
20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN, conventional = 275* F
10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil, silver bottle = 260* F
5W30 Chevron Supreme, API SN, conventional, blue bottle = 255*F
Here are the averages for the onset of thermal breakdown of these GASOLINE
ENGINE oils:
The 23 Full synthetic oils = 278* F
The3 Semi-synthetic oils = 263* F
The 4 Conventional dino oils = 268* F
The average value for the onset of thermal breakdown for all30 gasoline engine oils
combined = 275* F
These observations are perfectly consistent with the NOACK Volatility Test that is
performed at 302* F. Oils have to be vaporizing/smoking by 302* in order to perform
this official test.
As you can see by looking at the average value for each oil type above, there was only a
10* difference between the average of the conventional oils and the average of the full
synthetic oils. So, the real world observation here does NOT support common internet
motor oil info claims about synthetic oils in general, having an unbelievable
outrageously high temperature capability compared to other less expensive conventional
oils. The fact is, the test data here shows that, while there are some significant
individual differences, synthetic and conventional oils overall, are rather close in
thermal capability. This means that conventional oils are still far better than most people
think.
.
**************************************************************
.
SYNTHETIC DIESEL OILS:

RED LINE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O = 285* F
5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil synthetic = 280* F
MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4
and ACEA E7 = 270* F
5W40 Amsoil Premium Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CF, SN, SM, ACEA
E7, E9 = 265* F
ROYAL PURPLE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4 /SM, CI-4 PLUS, CH-4, CI-4
= 265* F
SHELL ROTELLA T6, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4/SM =
260* F
CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, SL, SM = 255*
F
.
CONVENTIONAL DIESEL OILS:
CASTROL GTX DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG4, CF-4/SN = 265* F
CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, SM,
SL = 265* F
FARM RATED 15W40 Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, conventional, API CI-4, CH4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ = 255* F
VALVOLINE PREMIUM BLUE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API
CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SM = 255* F
MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CHhttps://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]
4/SM, SL = 250* F
LUCAS 15W40 MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4,
CF/SL = 250* F
NEW SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CG-4,
CF-4,CF/SM = 250* F
OLD SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH = 250* F
Swepco 306 Supreme Forumula Engine Oil, 15W40 conventional, API CI-4/SL, CF-2 =
250*F
Here are the averages for the onset of thermal breakdown of these DIESEL oils:
The 7 full synthetic oils = 269* F
The 9 conventional oils = 254* F
The average value for the onset of thermal breakdown for all 16 Diesel oils combined =
261* F, which is 14* LOWER than the average of all30 gasoline engine oils
combined. That makes Diesel oils a poor choice for high performance gasoline engines,
in terms of thermal breakdown capability.
.
====================
.
====================
.
SECTION 4 COMPONENT QUANTITY LAB TEST RESULTS
.
All the component quantity Lab test results shown below, were taken from brand new,
thoroughly shaken bottles of oil. And all tests were performed at ALS Tribology, in
Sparks, Nevada. Having all the oils tested by the same Lab, makes this the most
consistent and reliable information you will ever find, for this many oil to oil
comparisons.
Most motor oils contain more zinc than phosphorus, but that is not always the case. A
good percentage of motor oils are formulated to contain more phosphorus than zinc. It
just depends on what the Chemical Engineers decided they needed for any particular oil.
So, you will find some oils below that show more phosphorus than zinc. And those
values are correct, they are NOT typos.
.
If youve read Section 1 Motor Oil Wear Protection Ranking List, of this Blog, you
know that the amount of zinc/phos, does NOT determine an oils wear protection
capability. Because it is physically impossible for more zinc/phos to provide more wear
protection. Zinc/phos does NOT work that way. More zinc/phos simply takes longer to
become depleted, since there was more to begin with. It is much like the way more gas
in your tank will take longer to run out, but more gas in your tank will NOT make more
power.
But, many people incorrectly believe you need high levels of zinc/phos for adequate
wear protection in High Performance engines, simply because they have always been
told that, read that or heard that. Amazingly, theyve blindly accepted that notion with
NO PROOF what so ever. And unfortunately for them, that line of thinking is nothing
more than an old wives tale MYTH that took on a life of its own, because it kept being
repeated over and over for years and years. But, repeating wrong folklore over and over,
does NOT make it magically become true.
Engineering tests have BUSTED that old high zinc/phos myth. And that test data has
PROVEN beyond any doubt, that the idea of all high zinc/phos oils providing adequate
wear protection, is simply NOT TRUE. The fact is, some high zinc/phos oils provide
excellent wear protection, while other high zinc/phos oils provide poor wear protection.
And you simply CANNOT tell from an oils Lab print out, which one is which, just by
looking at the amount of zinc/phos.
However, some people just cant accept that they have been off-track all these years
about zinc/phos, and choose to ignore the Engineering test data FACTS. Sadly, they
insist on clinging to their old false beliefs about needing high levels of zinc/phos, and in
so doing, they are putting their engine, and by extension, the engines of others, at risk
for no good reason.
Also, some high zinc/phos believers even get emotional and nasty about all this. But,
they can never back-up anything they say with actual facts. And no amount of hostility
or verbal attacks, will change the Engineering FACTS. Engineering does NOT work
that way. My Engineering testing does not involve pre-conceived notions or emotion. It
is all performed Professionally, and I report the results just as they are determined by
the Physics and Chemistry involved, good or bad. In other words, I back-up everything I
say with hard FACTUAL test data.
This is the 21st Century, and we now have correct Engineering test data FACTS
available, so that we can finally make informed decisions about motor oil selection, that
was not available before. Technology marches on. People can embrace it, and make use
of it to their advantage, or they can be left behind to continue making poor motor oil
choices.
In fact, incorrect choices of poor performing high zinc/phos motor oils, is the primary
reason why flat tappet wiped lobes are still a problem, whether during break-in or after.
But, choosing a high performing motor oil from my Motor Oil Wear Protection
Ranking List, which is based on oil film strength load carrying capability, rather than
on the amount of zinc/phos, can make wiped lobes and complicated break-in procedures
a thing of the past.
.
In addition to that, not only are high levels of zinc/phos no guarantee of providing
sufficient wear protection, but too much zinc/phos can actually DAMAGE your engine.
Oil industry testing has found that motor oils with more than 1,400 ppm ZDDP,
INCREASED long-term wear. And it was also found that motor oils with more than
2,000 ppm ZDDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in
camshaft spalling. The ZDDP value is the average of the zinc and phosphorus values,
rounded to the next lowest 100 ppm increment.
.
This by Brad Penn:
There is such a thing as too much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much
can be a detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive performance.
Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will tie-up detergents thus
encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate
into more protection. Only so much is utilized. We dont need to saturate our oil with
ZDDP.
The use of zinc/phosphorus as the primary extreme pressure anti-wear components is
outdated technology. Still, even the best modern low zinc/phos oils still use a some
zinc/phos, but they are used only as a portion of the extreme pressure anti-wear
components, that make up the overall additive package. And other modern proprietary
extreme pressure anti-wear components, which are superior to zinc/phos, and can vary
from Company to Company, are used as the primary extreme pressure anti-wear
components. But, we dont see those components in a normal Lab test print out, because
they are proprietary, so the Lab is not specifically looking for them.
So, what all this means is that the amount of zinc/phos on an oils Lab print out will
NOT help you choose an oil that will provide the excellent wear protection you desire.
As mentioned above, the only way to find out how well an oil truly provides wear
protection, is to look at an oils film strength load carrying capability. And you can find
that information in this Blog, in Section 1 Motor Oil Wear Protection Ranking List.
However, you can make use of an oils Lab print out on zinc/phos levels to see which
oils have too much zinc/phos and can actually damage an engine. As indicated above,
for long-term higher mileage usage, it is best to avoid oils that have more than 1,400
ppm ZDDP. For limited use Hotrods and Race Cars, it is best to avoid oils that have
more than 2,000 ppm ZDDP.
.
Also, looking at an oils Lab print out values for detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit
buildup/anti-sludge and TBN, can be very useful. It these values are comparable to the
values of typical normal street oils, that means you can use normal oil change intervals.
But, if those values are significantly lower than for typical normal street oils, then
shorter change intervals are required because those components will become depleted
sooner.
.
Over time, as mileage accumulates on any motor oil, the additive package components
become more and more depleted as they are used up. That, along with the oil becoming
dark, dirty and contaminated, is why changing oil at reasonable intervals is important.
.
So, to find out just how much the component quantities are reduced as mileage
accumulates, I also sent the Lab about a dozen used oils, both synthetic and
conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. The most noteworthy component quantity
depletions among those used oils were:
.
The zinc levels dropped by around 25% on average, over 5,000 miles. But, even with
significantly reduced zinc levels, there was no reduction in the original oil film strength
load carrying capability. So, that is further PROOF that the zinc level is not tied to the
wear protection level.
The TBN values dropped by about 4 points on average, over 5,000 miles.
.
Only brand new oil component quantities are shown below, and they are listed in the
following order:
.
1.Gasoline Engine Oil

2.Break-In Oil
3.Diesel Oil
.
*************************
GASOLINE ENGINE OIL

.
Amsoil 0W30 Signature Series (25,000 miles) synthetic (lab tested 2011)
This one does NOT have the API symbol, but its text says its recommended for API
SN applications
Silicon = 6 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials
and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 191 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 18 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3354 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 1 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 824 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 960 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 161 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 1 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 11.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most
gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.5 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt
(centistokes) in general terms, represents an oils thickness.
.
Even though extended drain intervals are not really in the best interest of any engine,
because motor oil is typically dark, dirty, contaminated and in need of changing by
5,000 miles, for those who absolutely insist on extended drain intervals, this may be one
of the best oils for that. Because it has a lot of extra detergent and acid neutralizer
(TBN), so that there is a lot of reserve to draw from as these become depleted over time.
.
As a comparison, Mobil 1 Extended Performance (15,000 miles), looks rather poor for
extended drain intervals when compared to this Amsoil product. This Amsoil motor oil
has over twice as much detergent, and 44% more TBN than Mobil 1 Extended
Performance (15,000).
****************
Amsoil 10W30 Dominator Racing Oil synthetic (lab tested 2013)
*******************
Amsoil 10W30 Z- Rod Oil synthetic ( lab tested 2011)
This one does NOT have the API symbol, but its text says its recommended for API
SL and earlier applications.
*************************
Brad Penn 0W30 Penn Grade 1 High Performance Oil partial synthetic (lab tested 2011)
This oil is from Bradford, Pennsylvania, thus the name Brad Penn.
***************************
Brad Penn 10W30 Penn Grade 1 High Performance Oil partial synthetic (lab tested
2011)
This oil is from Bradford, Pennsylvania, thus the name Brad Penn.
**********************
Castrol 5W20 Edge with Titanium API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Titanium = 49 ppm (anti-wear)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 9.1 (cSt range for SAE 20 is 5.6 to 9.2) And cSt (centistokes)
in general terms, represents an oils thickness.
***************
Castrol 5W30 Edge with Titanium API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Potassium = 4 (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
********************
Castrol 5W30 Edge API SM synthetic (lab tested 2011)
********************************
Castrol 5W30 GTX, API SN conventional (lab tested 2012)
Silicon = 11 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket
materials and dirt can also add to this number)
*************************
Castrol 5W30 GTX API SM conventional (lab tested 2011)
***********************
Castrol 30wt Heavy Duty, API SM conventional (lab tested 2012)
********************************
5W50 Castrol Edge w/Syntec API SN synthetic (lab tested 2012)
**************************
Castrol 20W50 GTX API SN conventional oil (lab tested 2012)
*************************
Chevron Supreme 5W30 API SN conventional (lab tested 2012)
*************************
Comp Cams 10W30 Muscle Car & Street Rod Oil synthetic blend (lab tested 2012)
*********************
Edelbrock 5W30 Cat Safe API SM synthetic (lab tested 2012)
******************
Edelbrock 10W40 synthetic (lab tested 2012)
**************************
GMs 5W30 AC Delco dexos 1, API SN semi-synthetic (lab tested 2012)
This oil is made by ExxonMobil.
*************************
5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic (lab tested 2014)
The bottle says it is formulated specifically for high output GM LS engines, and that no
ZDDP or additives are required.
.
******************
.
Joe Gibbs 10W30 HR- 4 Hot Rod Oil synthetic (lab tested 2011)
***************************
Joe Gibbs 10W30 XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil synthetic (lab tested 2011)
NOTE: Some of the numbers here were so unusual and unexpected, that I had the lab retest the oil sample on another day, after other oil tests showed normal results, just to
ensure that the original test was valid. And the re test came back with the exact same
numbers. So, the numbers are what they are. We know this line of oil works very well,
because it was developed for, and is used by, winning NASCAR Cup teams.
.
.
The detergent and TBN levels are so very low here, that this oil should most likely be
changed after every outing, before those components are totally exhausted.
********************
Kendall 20W50 GT-1 High Performance with liquid Titanium, API SN conventional
(lab tested 2012)
This oil is made by ConocoPhillips.
*************************
5W30 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil API SL synthetic (lab tested 2012)

*************************
5W30 LAT Synethic Racing Oil API SM (lab tested 2012)
*************************
Lucas 5W30 API SN conventional (lab tested 2012)
*************************
Lucas 5W30 API SM synthetic (lab tested 2012)
******************
Lucas 10W30 Racing Only synthetic (lab tested 2011)
.
The ZDDP values are so extremely high here, that this oil really is only suited for short
life dedicated racing engines, as the name implies. Using zinc/phos levels this high in
other engines could be cause for concern, since excessively high levels can cause
engine damage rather than prevent it.
**********************
Lucas 10W30 Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
*************************
.
5W30 Maxima RS530 Synthetic Racing Oil synthetic (lab tested 2012)
************************
0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil (lab tested 2013)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 6.1 And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an
oils thickness.
*****************
0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil (lab tested 2013)
********************
0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil (lab tested 2013)
************************
Mobil 1 0W20 Advanced Fuel Economy API SN synthetic (lab tested 2012)
***************
.
Mobil 1 5W20 API SN synthetic (lab tested 2012)
************************
Mobil 1 5W30 Extended Performance (15,000 miles) API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
.
The detergent, anti-wear and TBN components of this Extended Performance oil are
either about average or below average for typical API SN oils (even though some of the
components are a little higher than in its standard Mobil 1 counterpart). TBN eventually
becomes depleted as miles accumulate on oil in service. Thats one of the primary
reasons for changing oil in the first place, to replenish the exhausted additive package.
And it is not unusual for a TBN value to drop by about 4 points per 5,000 miles. So,
with this oil starting out with a fairly low TBN value to begin with, it would seem very
unlikely it could ever go a whopping 15,000 miles without having the TBN totally
depleted well before reaching that 15,000 mile mark. So, this extended mileage claim
appears to be only an unsupported marketing gimmick.
.
But, for those interested in long drain intervals, Id suggest sending in a sample of this
oil and having it lab tested at about the half way mark of 7,500 miles to see how much,
if any, TBN remains. But, of course motor oil is typically already dark, dirty,
contaminated and in need of changing by 5,000 miles anyway.
************************
Mobil 1 5W30 API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
*****************************
Mobil 1 15W50 API SN full synthetic oil (lab tested 2012)
***********************
Motorcraft 5W30 API SN full synthetic oil (lab tested 2012)
******************************
Motorcraft 5W50 API SN full synthetic oil (lab tested 2012)
************************
5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic (lab tested 2014)
This Motorcycle Road Racing oil is from France and comes in liter bottles (slightly more
than a quart). At the time this oil was tested in spring 2014, it cost $24.25 per bottle.
And with the shipping cost added to that, the final cost was about $33.00 per bottle
(shipping was all inside the U.S.), making it THE most expensive motor oil Ive ever
tested.
.
*************************
5W30 Oil Extreme API SM synthetic (lab tested 2013)
(centistokes) in general terms, represents an oils thickness
*****************
OReilly 5W30 (house brand) API SN conventional (lab tested 2012)
**************************
Pennzoil 5W30 Ultra API SM synthetic (lab tested 2011)
********************
Pennzoil 5W30, API SN conventional, yellow bottle (lab tested 2013)
***************
Quaker State 5W30 Ultimate Durability API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
.
NOTE: This bottles plastic was so paper thin and flimsy, that just gripping the bottle
with the cap off, squeezed oil up, out and all over the place. So, use extra care with this
one.
**********************
Quaker State 10W30 Defy, API SL synthetic blend (lab tested 2012)
(centistokes) in general terms, represents an oils thickness
*****************************
Redline 30wt Race Oil synthetic (lab tested 2011)
.
These ZDDP values are high enough here, that this oil really is only suited for short life
dedicated racing engines, as the name implies. Using zinc/phos levels this high in other
engines could be cause for concern, since excessively high levels, can cause engine
damage rather than prevent it.
.
The very low TBN value in this Redline oil is also consistent with short term use only.
*********************
Royal Purple 5W20 API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
**********************
Royal Purple 5W30 API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
********************
Royal Purple 5W30 XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) synthetic (lab tested 2008)
*************************
Royal Purple 5W30 API SL synthetic (lab tested 2011)
Potassium = Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
***********************
Royal Purple 10W30 HPS (High Performance Street) synthetic (lab tested 2011)
*************************
Royal Purple 20W50 API SN full synthetic oil (lab tested 2012)
*************************
Summit 10W40 Premium Racing Oil, API SL (lab tested 2013)
*************************
.
Torco 10W40 TR-1 Racing Oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
**********************
Valvoline 5W20 SynPower API SN synthetic (lab tested 2012)
***********************
Valvoline 5W30 SYNPower API SN synthetic (lab tested 2011)
**********************
Valvoline 5W30 NextGen 50% Recycled Oil, API SN conventional (lab tested 2013)
.
The TBN value in this new oil, is as low as some used oils have at 5,000 miles. So, this
oil might barely make it to 5,000 miles, without the TBN being depleted.
*******************
Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) 10W30 Conventional Racing Oil (lab tested 2011)
.
The very low TBN value in this NSL oil would require increased oil change frequency,
to avoid acid build-up. And Valvoline has said that their NSL oils should be changed at
least every 500 miles.
**************************
.
Valvoline VR1 10W30 Racing Oil conventional (Silver Bottle, lab tested 2011)
This one does NOT have the API symbol, but its text says it exceeds API SM
*********************
Valvoline VR1 10W30 SYNTHETIC Racing Oil API SL (Black Bottle, lab tested
2011)
************************
Valvoline 10W40 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil API SJ conventional (lab tested 2008)
.
=================================================================
=================================================================
.
BREAK-IN OIL
.
Amsoil 30wt Break-In Oil conventional (lab tested 2013)
******************
Comp Cams 10W30 Break-in Oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
**************************
Edelbrock 30wt Break-in Oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
**************************
.
Lucas 30wt Break-in Oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
******************
Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
.
=================================================================
=================================================================
DIESEL OIL
.
Chevron 15W40 Delo 400 LE Diesel Oil API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM,
conventional (lab tested 2012)
********************************
Farm Rated 15W40 Heavy Duty Performance Diesel Oil, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ
This oil is made by CITGO Petroleum Corp.
********************************
Lucas 15W40 Magnum Diesel Oil API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SL, conventional
(lab tested 2012)
********************************
Mobil 1 5W40 Turbo Diesel Truck Oil API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4 and ACEA,
synthetic (lab tested 2012)
********************************
Mobil 15W40 Delvac 1300 Super Diesel Oil conventional (lab tested 2012)
********************************
Redline 15W40 Diesel Oil API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF-4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O,
synthetic (lab tested 2012)
********************************
NEW 15W40 Shell Rotella T Diesel Oil API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4, CF/SM,
********************************
OLD 15W40 Shell Rotella T Diesel Oil API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG-4,CF4,CF,SL, SJ, SH conventional (lab tested 2012)
Zinc = 1171 ppm (anti-wear) Yes its true, the old Rotella actually has LESS zinc than
the new Rotella.
.
====================
.
====================
.
Section 5 Reserved for future Motor Oil Test Data
.
====================
.
====================
.
Section 6 DETAILED MOTOR OIL AND MECHANICAL TECH ARTICLES
.
NOTE: Some of the motor oil Articles were written before the most recently tested
motor oils were added to the Wear Protection Ranking List in Section 1.
.
1.I-BEAM VS H-BEAM WHICH CONNECTING ROD IS BEST?
I do NOT sell connecting rods, so I have no vested interest in what rods people choose to
use. But, there is so much misinformation, misunderstanding and confusion about
connecting rod design, that Ive put together a brief overview for those who are
interested in knowing the Engineering FACTS, rather than relying on the incorrect info
that is so common on the Internet and elsewhere.
It is best to avoid H-Beam rods in general, no matter who makes them, and no matter
who else uses them. Because as you will see below, an H-Beam rod is never the best
choice. They were originally made by someone who thought they might be better
and/or cheaper to make, without benefit of any Engineering analysis. So, the maker
didnt even know what the H-Beam shortcomings were. Then other makers copied
them, and eventually people started to think they must be good because they kept
showing up. And because they looked different than stock rods, some figured they must
be trick parts that are better.
But, you will only find the H-Beam style being used in the aftermarket Automotive
Industry where it is common for companies to create parts without having them
designed by actual Degreed Engineers. A lot of the aftermarket companies just make
stuff without even knowing what they are doing. No competent Degreed Mechanical
Engineer would ever design an H-Beam rod, because an H-Beam rod is a textbook case
of how NOT to design a connecting rod. So, buyer beware.
A rods max compression loads are determined by the amount of HP being made. Its a
simple matter of the higher the HP, the higher compression loading on the rod. And an
Engineering FACT (NOT opinion or theory) determined by proper buckling and
crippling analysis, is that the I-Beam rod design has about twice the strength in
compression, compared to a comparable H-Beam rod. So, that makes an I-Beam rod a
far better choice for any application, and particularly for those at higher performance
levels, such as those making over 1000 HP.
But, a rods max tension loads are determined by the mass of the parts involved, the rod
length, the stroke length, and the max rpm. Thats it. The max tension loads will never
change, no matter if you throw Nitrous, a Turbo, or Blower at it, as long as the short
block and redline dont change. That max tension loading occurs at TDC on the exhaust
stroke. And that has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the amount of HP being
made. In order to change the max tension loading, youd have to change the short block
configuration and/or the redline. Both types of rods have similar tension capability,
since that is only a product of the beams cross-sectional area.
In High Performance engines, connecting rod compression loading is ALWAYS
considerably higher than the tension loading. Heres an example using an 800HP,
540ci BBC with a 7,000 rpm redline:
Max compression loading on the rod is about 21,000 lbs or 10.5 tons.
Max tension loading is only around 11,000 lbs or 5.5 tons.
So, as you can see in this particular example, the compression loading is about twice as
high as the tension loading. But, if the HP increases, the compression loading will also
increase. And THAT IS WHY a rods compression loading capability is important to
consider when you are in the market for a new set of rods for a High Performance
engine.
An I-Beam rod made from high quality material such as 4340 forged steel will provide
plenty of Margin of Safety with regard to compression strength. But, a comparable HBeam rods margin of safety can be iffy, and it only gets worse as the HP levels go up.
For an H-Beam to catch up to the compression strength of an otherwise comparable IBeam, the H-Beam would need to be FAR heavier than the lighter, stronger and more
efficient I-Beam design. So, by using I-Beam rods, your engine can rev quicker, and
you will have the capability to increase the HP later on, without worrying about the rods
being strong enough to handle the extra HP.
The superiority of the I-Beam is why it is the structural beam design of choice for
countless Professional Engineering applications such as:
OEM automobile engines, including the Supercharged Corvette
Aluminum rods (that arent a solid rectangular cross section)
Piston aircraft engines
High performance high rpm motorcycle engines, which put out way more HP per
cubic inch and spin to much higher rpm than most of our stuff ever will.
Heavy equipment that uses Diesel engines, such as big rigs, bulldozers, earth movers,
cranes, ships, trains and other industrial engines.
Big rig trailer frames
Aircraft, spacecraft, and ship structural frames
Large in-building overhead crane main support beams
Bridge construction
Large building construction
Etc., etc.
The fact that I-Beams are used in these applications, to name just a few, should serve as
a sanity check for those who think H-Beams are better. H-Beam fans need to ask
themselves one question, If the H-Beam is better, then why havent they been used by
Degreed Engineers in these applications over these many, many decades?
So, the next time you need a set of rods, you might want to do yourself a favor, and only
consider I-Beam rods which are a significant UPGRADE over H-Beams.
BOTTOM LINE: For comparably made I-Beam and H-Beam rods which weigh the
same, the I-Beam will be FAR STRONGER IN COMPRESSION, than the H-Beam.
For comparably made I-Beam and H-Beam rods that have the same strength in
compression, the I-Beam will be FAR LIGHTER. The Engineering facts (NOT theory
and NOT opinion) are that the I-Beam rod is simply a far stronger, lighter and more
efficient design than the H-Beam. So, no matter what anyone tells you, there is simply
NO good reason to ever use an H-Beam rod. It makes no sense to buy H-Beams when
the clearly superior I-Beams are readily available.
H-Beam users sometimes get emotional and nasty about the fact that H-Beams are
inferior in every way, and that they could have made a better choice. But, emotional
outbursts will NOT change the Physics involved that prove the superiority of the IBeam rod design. Of course people can use whatever they want, and for those still
having a hard time accepting all this, consider the following:
Lunatis recommendation for their rods:
H-Beam Rods ideal for High Performance street & mild race engines.
Pro Series I-Beam Rods perfect for Street Rods, Street-Strip Engines and all-out Race
Engines
Pro Mod I-Beam Rods perfect for any racer needing an ultra-strong I-beam design
They also say that every Lunati connecting rod is forged from premium quality 4340
alloy steel for strength.
So, as you can see, Lunati knows what they are doing, mirrored what I said above, and
got it right about H-Beams, I-Beams and forgings.

And speaking of that topic, no one needs a billet rod either. Forged rods have desirable
grain structure and desirable residual compressive stresses, but billet rods DO NOT.
Forged parts are always better than billet parts. For example, all fracture critical jet
aircraft parts are forged, NOT billet. Billet parts are simply cheaper to manufacture in
small quantities, even though machining time will be higher. Because billet parts do not
require the horribly expensive forging presses and dies. But, when parts are produced in
high enough mass quantities to spread out the cost of the forging presses and dies, then
forged parts can end up being both superior and more affordable, because forgings dont
need as much final machining time.
540 RAT
.
====================
.
====================
.
2.ROD BOLT STRENGTH WHAT DO WE REALLY NEED?
This write-up is not intended to be a chapter out of an Engineering Design Book. That
would be way too long, way too involved, and way too boring for most folks here to
have any interest in. Instead, this is just a general overview of how connecting rod bolts
compare, and what we REALLY NEED in our motors.
Yield Strength = the stress at which a material begins to deform plastically. Prior to the
yield point the material will deform elastically and will return to its original shape and
size when the applied stress is removed. Once the yield point is passed, the deformation
will be permanent, which is considered a failed condition for a bolt. So, the bolt must
be discarded.
Tensile Strength = the maximum stress that a material can withstand while being
stretched or pulled, without starting to neck down and ultimately breaking.
First lets look at some typical strength values of various bolts, to get a general feel for
how they compare.
Grade 2 hardware store general purpose bolt:
Yield strength = 55,000 psi
Tensile strength = 74,000 psi
Cost = a few cents each
ARP 8740 chrome moly connecting rod bolt:
Cost = $120.00 per set of 16 at Summit Racing Equipment, or about $8.00 each.
ARP 2000 connecting rod bolt:
ARP 2000 rod bolt material has twice the fatigue life of 8740 chrome moly rod bolt
material.
ARP L19 connecting rod bolt:
ARP L19 rod bolt material is subject to hydrogen embrittlement, and stress corrosion. It
also cannot be exposed to any moisture, including sweat and/or condensation.
ARP Custom Age 625+ connecting rod bolt:
ARP Custom Age 625+ rod bolt material has nearly 3 times the fatigue life of the
ARP 3.5 rod bolt material.
Cost = $600.00 per set of 16 at Summit Racing Equipment, or about $38.00 EACH.
ARP 3.5 connecting rod bolt:
Cost = $855.00 per set of 16 at Summit Racing Equipment, or about $53.00 EACH!!!
So, as you can see above, hardware store general purpose bolts are considerably weaker
than purpose built connecting rod bolts. And we wont even bother getting into the
differences in fatigue life. Suffice it to say, we CANNOT use general purpose hardware
store bolts in our connecting rods.
A connecting rod bolts maximum tension loads are determined by the mass of the parts
involved, the rod length, the stroke length, and the max rpm. Thats it. It has absolutely
nothing what so ever to do with the amount of HP being made. The max tension loads
on the rod bolts will never change, no matter if you add Nitrous, a Turbo, or a Blower to
an engine, as long as the short block and redline dont change. That max tension loading
occurs at TDC on the exhaust stroke as the mass involved is brought to a dead stop, and
has its direction reversed. In order to change the max tension loading on the rod bolts,
youd have to change the short block configuration and/or the redline. And vacuum
pulling on the rod bolts when chopping the throttle at high rpm, is not a concern.
Because those affects dont even begin to build until well past TDC, which of course is
AFTER the mass of the parts involved has already been brought to a stop, and their
direction reversed.
The rods big end clamp-up preload provided by stretching/torquing the rod bolts,
must always be HIGHER than the cyclic tension load applied to the bolts at TDC
exhaust, in order to prevent rod bolt failure. And the larger the difference between the
preload and the cyclic load, the better. Precision detailed Strength Analysis
calculations can be performed using sound Engineering principles, to determine the
Margin of Safety (MOS) between the cyclic tension loading and the clamp-up
preload, to make sure you have a sufficient MOS for the engine to be reliable. Ill spare
you all the involved and complicated math, and just show you the results.
Before we go on, first a comment on cap screw rod bolt sizes. Your rod bolts are NOT
the size you think they are. If you run 3/8 rod bolts, only the threads are 3/8. But, the
part of the bolt that matters regarding the stretch, is the shank. And the main length of
the shank is only 5/16, not the 3/8 you might have thought. And if you run 7/16 rod
bolts, the threads are 7/16, but main length of the shank is only 3/8. So, where you are
most concerned, the bolts are one size SMALLER than you thought.
And if that isnt enough detail, you must also consider, in addition to the main section of
the shank, the other diameters involved which come from the radius transition between
the threads and the shank, the radius transition between the shank and the shoulder right
under the bolt head flange, and that shoulder itself right under the bolt head flange. The
bolts stretch the whole length between the threads and the bolt head flange. And all
those individual sections contribute to the total stretch by different amounts.
So, the rod bolt Strength Analysis must take into account all those various diameters,
as well as the length of each of those diameters. Because the stretch has to be calculated
for each individual section of the shank between the threads and the bolt head flange. If
this is not done correctly, the Strength Analysis results will simply end up being
wrong and worthless. But, for the results shown below, all those details were carefully
worked out for those portions of the Strength Analysis. So, the answers below are all
accurate.
Rod bolt Strength Analysis performed on known real world Street Hotrods,
Street/Strip cars and Sportsman Drag cars, being operated at their typical maximum
rpm, indicates the following:
An engine with a max rpm rod bolt MOS of around 125% or higher, results in the
engine being as safe and reliable as a stock grocery getter, or in other words essentially
bullet proof. This is our design target when planning a new build. Having a MOS higher
than this cant hurt of course, but in terms of strength requirements, there is really no
added value for doing that. However, a higher MOS can help with rod bolt fatigue life,
if that is critical for a particular application. More on fatigue life later.
If you are a little more aggressive, and run a maximum rpm rod bolt MOS between
100% and 125% only on occasion, which limits the number of cycles at this higher
stress level, you will still generally be able to keep the engine together.
But, if you were to run a typical maximum rpm rod bolt MOS under 100%, your rod
bolts will be expected to fail prematurely.
As mentioned above in the definition of Yield Strength, we CANNOT stretch our rod
bolts beyond the yield point. Because once the yield point is passed, it is considered a
failed condition for a bolt, and the bolt must be discarded. So, a typical conservative
Engineering approach in most general applications is to use a preload clamp-up of about
75% of yield. That way you have a good range between the installed preload and the
yield point, in case the bolts get stressed even more during operational use. However,
typical engine connecting rod bolt preload clamp-up in most reliable engines, can vary
from a low of about 60% of yield to a high of about 90% of yield, with 75% of yield,
the sweet spot you might say, right in the middle.

Since rod bolt stretch specs have generally become the standard in High Performance
engine builds, the stretch called for is more often around 90% of the yield point.
Stretching to this higher percentage of yield, is used to maximize preload clamp-up, in
an effort to try and help minimize rod big end distortion at high rpm, which can cause
additional undesirable rod bolt bending that would add to the bolt stress.
So, this high level of stretch is a good idea from that standpoint, but at the same time,
you are left with a smaller range between the installed preload clamp-up and the yield
point. But, this common 90% of yield has worked out quite well in the real world for
Hotrods, Street/Strip cars, and Sportsman Drag cars. Even though there is less range
between the installed preload clamp-up and the yield point, the yield point in properly
selected rod bolts is not typically reached in actual operation, so all is good.
You may also have noticed that through all this discussion of rod bolt strength, there has
been no mention at all of rod bolt tensile strength. Thats because we CANNOT go
beyond the yield strength which is reached well BELOW the tensile strength. So,
what good is tensile strength then? For a large number of steels, there is a direct
correlation between tensile strength and fatigue life. Normally, as tensile strength
increases, the fatigue life increases. So, while tensile strength does not come into play
during rod bolt Strength Analysis, it is a factor in rod bolt fatigue life.
Rod bolt fatigue life is important to Road Racers because of the number of cycles they
see. And rod bolt fatigue life is absolutely critical for Endurance Racers like NASCAR.
And NASCAR teams do an incredible job managing the fatigue life of their rod bolts.
But, for our Hotrods, Street/Strip cars and Sportsman Drag cars, rod bolt fatigue life
isnt typically a big concern, if the motors are built with the correct rod bolts in the first
place. That is because these bolts wont typically see enough cycles in their lifetime to
cause a failure due to fatigue. But, with that said, it is still a good idea to keep fatigue
life in the back of your mind, when it comes to choosing your rod bolts. It can be a tie
breaker, in the event that multiple rod bolts are being considered for a certain build.
More on that below.
Even though there are various companies that offer rod bolts, below we will compare 5
different rod bolts offered by Industry leader ARP.
So, lets take a look at a typical 540ci BBC motor, running steel rods with 7/16 cap
screw rod bolts, and uses 7,500 rpm as its typical maximum, which results in a cyclic
tension load on each rod bolt that = 7,280 lbs or about 3.6 tons:
For general reference, lets first take a look at rods installed the old school traditional
way, here using ARP 2000 rod bolts that are torqued to about 75 ft lbs with original
ARP moly lube.
Bolt stretch is about .005, which = 76% of yield strength
Clamp-up preload on each rod bolt = 16,531 lbs or about 8.3 tons
Margin of Safety (MOS) for this setup = 127%, which meets our MOS design target for
being safe, reliable and essentially bullet proof.
Now, for the rest of the rod bolts well be looking at, well preload them to the more
common higher percentage of yield strength, which is typical of the stretch called for
these days.
Using ARP 8740 chrome moly rod bolts (this has the same yield strength as ARP
2000)
Bolt stretch = .006 which = 90% of yield strength
Margin of Safety (MOS) = 170%

Using ARP 2000 rod bolts (this has the same yield strength as 8740 chrome moly)

Using ARP L19 rod bolts

Using ARP Custom Age 625+ rod bolts

Using ARP 3.5 rod bolts

As you can see above in all 6 examples, whether torqued the traditional way to a lower
stretch value, or stretched to the more recently called for higher percentage of yield
value, all these rod bolts are above the minimum 125% MOS target for safety and
reliability. Therefore, all these configurations would operate without issue, just like a
stock grocery getter. So, if a builder chooses any of these bolts or stretch values between
the 127% and the 250% Margins of Safety above, he could NOT go wrong, no matter
how much HP the motor makes. Remember that HP has NOTHING to do with the max
tension loads on rod bolts.
Since most Hotrods, Street/Strip cars, and Sportsman Drag cars, with their lower number
of cycles, can live almost indefinitely with some of the more affordable mainstream rod
bolts above, its rather hard to make a case for using the much more expensive and
higher strength 625+ or 3.5 bolts, even if they do have higher fatigue life values.
BOTTOM LINE
So then, all we REALLY NEED, from a conservative Engineering standpoint, is to at
least reach the 125% MOS target for safety and reliability, no matter how much HP is
being made. And anything above that 125% is fine, but not necessary.
But, things arent always wine and roses, because some engines will NOT stay together
and live like the well built configurations above. Ive done failed rod bolt Strength
Analysis on two smaller very high revving engines, after the fact, to take a look at why
they failed. One blew-up catastrophically when a rod bolt broke, costing its owner 20
grand. And the other engine was found to have rod bolts stretched beyond the yield
point, during a teardown for other reasons. So, its fuse had been lit, but fortunately it
was caught just in the nick of time before they let go, saving its owner a ton of money
and agony.
In both cases, the rod bolt Strength Analysis revealed that they had been built wrong,
and that they were well BELOW 100% MOS, which predicts premature rod bolt failure.
One had only a 67% MOS and the other had only an 86% MOS. If rod bolt Strength
Analysis had been performed before these engines were built, during the planning
stages, then all that grief and cost could have been avoided. They have since been
rebuilt much stronger, with MOS values now well ABOVE that 125% safe target. And
they have now been raced for some time without issue.
SUMMARY
ARP 8740 chrome moly rod bolt a strong affordable rod bolt, but it has only a
moderate fatigue life, which makes the ARP 2000 rod bolt which is in the same general
price range, a much better choice since it has twice the fatigue life.
ARP 2000 rod bolt considering how good its strength and fatigue life are, this rod
bolt is an excellent choice for most Hotrods, Street/Strip cars, and Sportsman Drag cars.
ARP L19 rod bolt the strength and fatigue life increases this bolt provides over the
ARP 2000 are not significant enough to overcome the concerns the L19 has with
hydrogen embrittlement, stress corrosion, and the fact that it CANNOT be exposed to
any moisture, including sweat and/or condensation. Dont forget that every engine
forms condensation inside, at every cold start-up. Plus, oil rises to the top of, and floats
on water because of density differences, which can leave portions of the rod bolts
exposed to water even after the engine is built. Therefore, it is best to avoid the L19 rod
bolt altogether, especially since the ARP 2000 rod bolt already provides way more than
enough strength and fatigue life than is typically required by most Hotrods, Street/Strip
cars, and Sportsman Drag cars. So, there simply is no good reason to select the ARP
L19 rod bolt. If you are currently running L19 bolts, Id suggest you consider replacing
them with different bolts the next time you have the motor apart.
ARP Custom Age 625+ rod bolt a very pricey bolt, but with its excellent strength and
its impressive fatigue life, this bolt is one of the very best rod bolts on the market.
ARP 3.5 rod bolt this bolt has excellent strength, but its staggering cost is 43%
HIGHER than the 625+ bolt, yet the 625+ bolt is superior to the 3.5 bolt in virtually
every way. So, there is no good reason to select the 3.5 bolt either.
CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION
Of the 5 rod bolts above:
The ARP 2000 rod bolt is an excellent value, considering how good its strength and
fatigue life are. And it should be considered the rod bolt of choice for most Hotrods,
Street/Strip cars, and Sportsman Drag cars, no matter how much HP they make. And
this is why you most often see quality aftermarket rods come with these bolts.
ARP Custom Age 625+ rod bolt has a price that is not for the faint of wallet, but it
should be considered the rod bolt of choice for very high revving engines, road race
engines, and endurance engines, which require the utmost in rod bolt strength and/or
fatigue life.
540 RAT
.
====================
.
====================
.
3.SOLID ROLLER LIFTERS BUSHINGS VS NEEDLES, WHICH IS BEST?
Discussions about running solid roller lifters in BBCs, can be a hotly debated topic. The
debate breaks down into two sides. On one side is the traditional needle type solid roller
lifter and on the other side is the newer and much higher load rated bushing type solid
roller lifter.
Let me say right up front, that I have no agenda here at all. The purpose of the following
write-up is only to share the findings that came out of my root cause failure analysis
investigation into needle bearing failures in solid roller lifters. By sharing the results of
my investigation, I thought it could help fellow Hotrodders and Racers to make a better
informed buying decision. I have only good intentions about sharing this data, because I
feel that everyone deserves to know the truth about whats been going on, and how the
two types of lifters compare.
Personally, I do not sell lifters, nor do I work for a company that does. So I have no
stake in what particular brands or models of lifters are good, bad or questionable.
Therefore, I have no stake in what lifters are purchased either. I also dont care what
parts other people run in their motors. Thats up to them. The info I provide here is not
based on emotion or personal preference. It is simply based on the Engineering facts,
and followed up with my thoughts based on those facts. Thats it, nothing more.
It is not exactly clear how high the failure percentage is with the needle type solid roller
lifters. But these failures have been a significant issue for BBCs, for some years now,
and are still happening. Over the last several years, most of my BBC friends, buddies
and acquaintances, as well as numerous participants from various Hotrod and Racing
Forums, have experienced premature needle type solid roller lifter failures, associated
with the needles, axles and/or roller wheels.
The engine damage has ranged from just the lifters themselves, all the way to major
engine destruction, requiring a total rebuild. This is not something new. Among the
people I know whove experienced premature failures, it spreads from California to
Nova Scotia, and from mild to wild engines. There is certainly more of a potential for
these needle type lifters to fail, than there is with any other component inside a BBC.
Whatever the true failure percentage is, it is way too high to simply ignore altogether.
So, it would be wise to at least take that into consideration when it comes time to
purchase a set of solid roller lifters.
Comp Cams has said that the life expectancy of their ENDURE-X needle type solid
roller lifter in street driven BBCs is ONLY 2,000 MILES!!! And those lifters are
pressure fed, come with precision sorted needles, and have wear resistant tool steel
axles. And in Iskys ads for their bushing type EZ-Roll solid roller lifters, they say
that with these lifters, youll never worry about needle bearing overload or premature
roller bearing failure again, because they provide 350% higher load rating than
comparable needle type solid roller lifters. And now many other Companies are
following Isky into the bushing type solid roller lifter market. So, all of these lifter
manufacturers certainly recognize the fact that needle type solid roller lifters have some
serious durability/longevity short comings.
While solid roller setups do make the most power, they can also decrease the valve
trains life expectancy, compared to what you would generally expect from other types
of lifters. Failures of needle type pressure fed solid roller lifters as early as 3,000 to
5,000 miles, or even earlier with street driven BBC Hotrods is not that uncommon. Even
the highly regarded Morel needle type solid rollers that they supply to Lunati, have
failed at about 5,000 miles in an 850 HP BBC Street/Strip Hotrod. So, there is nothing
magical about those particular lifters either.
However, one of the earliest and nastiest failures that I am aware of, was from a set of
Isky Redzone needle type lifters that suffered needle/axle failure at only 1,500 miles in
another Street/Strip BBC Hotrod, and wiped out the whole engine. But the single
earliest failure that Im aware of was from a set of Isky Redzones needle type lifters
that suffered needle/axle failure at only 1,200 miles in a mild BBC Street Hotrod.
But some folks think that if they choose the right oil, they can keep their pressure fed
solid roller lifters in good shape. But the fact is, that no matter what oil you run, even all
the way up to high zinc/phos Racing Oils that cost around $20 per quart, your pressure
fed solid roller lifters can still fail at a time/mileage that most of us would consider
premature. So, even if you use the best oil money can buy, it cannot save you. Thats
because these lifters typically do NOT suffer from oil related failures (more on that
below).
Of course there are some who maintain that pressure fed solid roller lifters dont
experience premature failure, with their owners wondering what all the fuss is about.
But reasonable longevity, as a good number of people have found out the hard way, is
not guaranteed. Having these lifters reach an acceptable life span, can be just the luck of
the draw and not something that you can bet your engine on.
And no matter how well built your engine is. No matter how much valve spring pressure
you have. No matter how good your rocker geometry is. No matter what brand of lifter
you have. No matter how often you change your oil. No matter what lifter to bore
clearance you run (more on that below). At the end of the day, there are only two kinds
of pressure fed needle type solid roller lifter users. Those who have had premature
failures and those who are vulnerable to premature failures. These lifters are absolutely
NOT bullet proof. In fact they are essentially a ticking time bomb waiting to go off, as
you will see below.
When I first looked into this issue, the needle type solid roller lifter failures were a very
often discussed problem, and no one ever made any attempt to determine what the root
cause of the failure was. So, I decided to look into it myself for my own reason. And
that reason was that I was building a Street/Strip 540 BBC for myself, and I did not
want the engine destroyed by failed needle lifters.
So, I decided to perform a root cause failure analysis, in order to get to the bottom of this
all too common premature failure issue. While it is difficult to accurately say just what
the failure percentages are, I at least wanted to inspect failed examples and determine
why those that had failed, did fail. To that end, I collected a few sets (I would have liked
a much larger sampling, but these were the only examples I could get my hands on at
the time) of FAILED standard diameter .842 BBC pressure fed, needle type solid roller
lifters. These failed lifters were different name brands, and had used different name
brands and viscosities of high zinc/phos oils. And they were from different performance
level engines, ranging from relatively MILD to relatively WILD.
FACTS FROM THE INVESTIGATION:

The engines specs are:
*** 408ci BBC, 243*/249* duration at .050, .663/.655 valve lift, .024/.026 hot lash,
210 lbs on the seat valve spring pressure, 567 lbs on the nose valve spring pressure,
15W40 Chevron Delo motor oil, Isky Redzone lifters, 6300 max rpm. These failed at
about 3,000 nearly all street miles. This is a relatively mild BBC Hotrod, so failures are
certainly NOT limited to only super High Performance motors.
*** 540ci BBC, 266*/272* duration at .050, .678/.688 valve lift, .016 hot lash, 260 lbs
on the seat valve spring pressure, 650 lbs on the nose valve spring pressure, 20W50
Redline motor oil, Crower HIPPO lifters. These started to fail at about 5,000 nearly all
street miles. This is a stout Street/Strip BBC Hotrod.
*** 632ci BBC, 277*/292* duration at .050, .848/.824 valve lift, .026/.028 hot lash,
325 lbs on the seat valve spring pressure, 875 lbs on the nose valve spring pressure,
20W50 Mobil 1, Redline, and Royal Purple XPR Racing Oil, Crower HIPPO lifters,
7200 max rpm. These failed after 1 1/2 years. Mileage and driving style not
documented. This is an example of a BBC Race motor.
Careful root cause failure analysis revealed that oiling had played no part what so ever in
these failures, but they all had suffered needle/axle failure due to the EXACT SAME
root cause METAL SURFACE FATIGUE FAILURE. This is exhibited by extensive
flaking and pitting of the metals surface, which is called Spalling. With loose flakes
floating around, and the surface no longer smooth and round, the needles can stop
rolling and start sliding, thus forming flat spots, which just speeds up the failure process
all the more.
This metal fatigue failure comes from excessive loading in general, and from excessive
shock loading/hammering in particular. These lifters are way too small for the loads
they typically see. And as such, they are a poor design for this application, when it
comes to any certainty of a long life. So, it really is not surprising that they are
susceptible to failure. After all, jack hammering is designed to destroy things.
And if that isnt bad enough, I also found that only the 3 bottom needles are in loadbearing contact when the lifter is loaded down. On top of that, the needles only make a
line contact, which means extremely high localized pressure on the needles
themselves, as well as on the axle and on the roller ID. And not only had the
needles/axles failed, as is normally the case, but the roller ODs, which are also subject
to metal surface fatigue failure, had also failed or were starting to fail, depending on the
particular set in question. And the larger the lash had been, the worse the lifters had
failed.
As for lifter to bore clearance: The smaller the clearance, the less the lifters can tilt to the
side, and the more the load is evenly applied across the whole length of the needles, axle
and roller wheel, which can help postpone lifter failure a little. And the larger the
clearance, the more the lifter can be severely loaded on only one end of the needles, axle
and roller wheel, due to lifter sideways tipping. And that just makes this whole problem
go from bad to worse, thus accelerating the failure. So, for that reason, Id recommend
not exceeding .0015 lifter to bore clearance with .842 lifters.
Keep in mind that for iron and steel, the coefficient of thermal expansion is essentially
identical. What that means is that the lifter to lifter bore clearance will stay virtually the
same from cold to hot engine temps. Therefore, that max recommended clearance of
.0015 is more than enough. Remember the rule of thumb for iron/steel parts is, .001
clearance for every 1.0 of diameter. So, by that rule, .842 lifters really only need
.000842 inches of clearance, which means that .0015 clearance is nearly twice what
they actually NEED. Any more clearance than that, and you are only making things
worse for the lifters.
Spintron testing has shown that the lifters can bounce up and down on the cams base
circle, within their lash slop. So, the larger the lash, the more severe the shock
loading/hammering can be, even with proper spring pressures. Because the lifter isnt
always going to be in a position to follow the lobes clearance ramp as intended, but
instead it will hit hard somewhere on that ramp. So all the effort the cam designer put
into designing that clearance ramp, will have no effect at all on how hard the lifter hits,
at the point of actual contact.
And of course if an engine isnt built right, and the spring pressures arent high enough,
Spintron testing has also shown that in this case, the lifters can even bounce the valves
up and down off their seats as well. This obviously just makes things go from bad to
worse.
So, no matter what Super Duper brand or model of lifter you run, due to this repeated
shock loading/hammering, you can still end up with prematurely failed pressure fed
needle type solid roller lifters.
After I determined the root cause of these failed lifters, I pulled a brand new set of
Crower Severe Duty needle type HIPPO lifters out of my 540ci BBC and put in a set of
Isky bushing type EZXs (a particular version of the EZ-Roll design).
The EZXs bushings spread the load way out across the axles surface, thus greatly
reducing the localized pressure between them. As Isky has stated, they have a 350%
higher load rating than needle type solid roller lifters. However, even this bushing type
of lifter is still subject to roller OD surface fatigue failure, but at least the highly
vulnerable needles are gone.
SUMMARY/SUGGESTIONS:
1. The overall big picture failure percentage is still unclear, but to be on the safe side, I
recommend NOT running needle type solid roller lifters, no matter what brand, no
matter how expensive they might be, and no matter what their marketing hype says.
Because the needles and their axles are by far the most vulnerable to premature metal
surface fatigue failure, even if they have high pressure pin oiling.
Failures with these needle type lifters can include the lifters themselves, the cam, and the
blocks lifter bores. And in the worst case, which is not that unusual, they can wipe out
the whole engine, requiring a total rebuild. If you do choose to run needle type solid
roller lifters anyway, rather than upgrading to the much higher load rated bushing type,
you may well be playing Russian Roulette with your engine. And youd need to ask
yourself, is it REALLY worth risking potential engine destruction, when a far superior,
much more durable alternative is readily available?
Clearly the best plan to try and avoid the potential for failure, is to upgrade to the nonneedle bushing type pressure fed solid roller lifters, which have a much, much higher
load rating. Although there are now a number of different bushing lifters on the market,
one of the most popular lifter of this kind, is the Isky EZX bushing type solid roller
lifter. While there is no such thing as a bulletproof solid roller lifter, these lifters are
about as close as you will get.
2. Try not to exceed .0015 lifter to bore clearance with .842 lifters. The smaller the
clearance, the more the load is spread out and evenly applied across the whole axle,
bushing/needles and roller wheel, which can help postpone lifter failure a little. And the
larger the clearance, the more the load can be applied to only one end of the axle,
bushing/needles and roller wheel, due to lifter sideways tipping, which can drive up
localized loading and increase the likelihood of failure.
3. Run the smallest amount of lash that you can live with. Because reduced lash will
allow less clearance slop for the lifter to bounce around in. And not being so far out of
position on the lobes ramp, can help to somewhat reduce the shock
loading/bouncing/hammering that the lifters will see, no matter how well that cam lobe
ramp is designed.
4. Since you cannot escape metal fatigue failure, it is best to try and replace/rebuild the
lifters at frequent enough intervals to head off failure before it catches up with you. But
failure intervals are unpredictable and can vary widely, which makes it very difficult to
decide on a maximum interval to follow. The most common failure interval that Im
aware of, not limited just to those I personally inspected, seems to be between 3,000 and
5,000 miles, though its not that unusual for them to fail much sooner than that, as
mentioned above. With that being the case, personally Id never exceed 5,000 miles, as
a rebuild/replace max limit.
All you can really do is use your best judgement here. I recommend being on the
conservative side, because the engine you might save will be your own. But at least with
bushing type solid roller lifters, all we have to be on the lookout for is roller wheel OD
surface fatigue failure, since they dont use the vulnerable to failure needles.
5. You could also consider running a rev kit, if that is reasonable for your application.
It may help a little by keeping the lifter in contact with the lobe. But engines equipped
with rev kits, that were still running the normally called for loose lash, have still
suffered premature pressure fed needle type solid roller lifter failures. Even though a rev
kit will keep the solid roller lifter in contact with the lobe, base circle and ramps, you
still most likely are running the recommended sloppy loose lash. All that slop didnt just
magically go away because the lifter stays in contact with the cam. It still has to be
taken up somewhere, and that somewhere is taken up with hammer blows to the
pushrod/rocker arm, when the lifter smacks into pushrod, and/or when the pushrod
smacks into the rocker. And all that shock loading gets reacted at the roller/axle/needle
interface with the lobe. So, rev kits dont really seem to help all that much.
6. Dont lose any sleep over what oil brand or viscosity to run, how often to change it, or
whether or not it has high or low levels of zinc/phos, because it wont make any
difference when it comes to metal fatigue failure. Just use your favorite oil and change it
at your normal interval. Though running a high quality oil with excellent film strength is
always a good choice in general.
7. Beyond what is mentioned above, all you can really do is just keep a close eye out for
any unusual changes in lash, to try and catch a failure in its early stages, before too
much damage is done.
Only hydraulic roller setups, that dont have such radical lobes, dont have such high
spring pressures, dont see such high rpm, and have no lash, thus no
bouncing/hammering/shock loading, seem to have an acceptable record of a good life
expectancy on the street, in most cases. So, these are the lifters that really should be
used in street driven Hotrods.
But of course a lot of us choose to run solid roller lifters on the street anyway, for the
performance capability they provide. But truth be told, this type of lifter is really only
intended for race engines. So, we have to deal with their shortcomings when they are
used in street driven Hotrods, which is not really the correct application. Because of
course, street driven Hotrods see way more time/mileage/jack hammer pounding cycles
than race engines ever will.
BOTTOM LINE: Solid roller lifters are very high maintenance parts when run on the
street. And to be on the safe side, they will need to be rebuilt/replaced at frequent
intervals, when used in that manner. They are probably the weakest link in most street
driven BBC engines. And just installing them and forgetting them, can be very risky.
We have generally pushed this nearly 60 year old basic pushrod engine design about as
far as we can. And to totally eliminate the potential for lifter failure, wed need to
upgrade to a more modern overhead cam design. But for those of us who still choose to
run our beloved traditional BBCs, well just have to deal with this potential problem as
best we can. Thats the price we pay for power.
Everyone will have to make their own decision about what lifter type they choose to run.
But youll find the much higher load rated, bushing type Isky EZX solid roller lifters,
with a much higher margin of safety, in my 540 BBC.
540 RAT
.
===============================
.
===============================
.
4.CAMSHAFT OVERLAP VS LSA (LOBE SEPARATION ANGLE)
Lets take a look at which method makes the most sense for selecting a cam, LSA (lobe
separation angle) or Overlap and Duration. Many cam designers and engine builders
will tell racers, hot rodders and gear heads to start with some particular LSA for
choosing a cam. And of course you hear guys say, that they are going to be picking a
new cam, and that they will be using such and such LSA, but that they havent yet
decided on the lift and duration. And they dont even consider the specific overlap value
at all.
The whole idea of starting with some given LSA as a starting point, simply makes no
sense at all. Heres why: LSA has no value at all, in and of itself, because of the fact that
it is overlap that defines an engines operational characteristics. And LSA is merely a
by-product of that overlap. In fact, Comp Cams guru Billy Godbold and I share the
same philosophy about that. And he said this:
LSA doesnt mean anything except for how it affects the camshaft centerlines. You
determine the centerlines, which determines OVERLAP, and THAT has performance
effects.
Heres an example of what we are talking about.
Lets say some old time cam designer or engine builder tells a young kid that he should
use a 110* LSA for an old 327 ci flat tappet SBC that he wants to do his first
modification on. So, the kid pulls out a Comp Cams catalog and looks up solid flat
tappet cams for it. And since he was told to go with a 110* LSA as a starting point, he
comes across these two cams that have the 110* LSA as was recommended, as well as
the following advertised duration and .050 duration:
CAM...ADV DUR.. .050 DUR
#1.256*/262*.218*/224*
#2.306*/306*.260*/260*
Now, anyone at all familiar with cams would see a very significant difference between
these two cams. Old Pros know what they are seeing, but the kid cant tell much about
them. And yet they both have the SAME EXACT recommended 110* LSA. So,
targeting that particular LSA didnt tell the kid anything at all in terms of how the cams
will operate/perform in his engine. But if hed calculated advertised overlap, using the
procedure below, hed get advertised overlap values of:
Cam #1 = 39*
Cam #2 = 86*
There is obviously a HUGE difference between these advertised overlap values, but
again, these two cams have the SAME EXACT 110* LSA. Now if he looks at the adv
overlap reference chart below, hed see that cam #1 falls between the ordinary street
and street performance categories. So, that cam isnt much more than Grannys
grocery getter cam. But, cam #2 falls fully into the race category, making it a wicked
cam by any measure. Now the kid can see that they are radically different cams, even
though they have the SAME EXACT 110* LSA. So, it took the overlap to finally
show him that he is dealing with two entirely different cams that have COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT operational characteristics.
This clearly shows how LSA, all by itself, does NOT make a distinction between
operational characteristics, and is virtually useless in defining a cam. But on the other
hand, ADVERTISED OVERLAP absolutely DOES define a cams operational
characteristics, every time. So, it makes much more sense to go in knowing how much
overlap you want, then select a cam based on that, which will best meet your needs.
Now the kid can make a much more informed buying decision.
As shown above, cams can be wildly different with the SAME EXACT LSA, but
ADVERTISED OVERLAP will always show you whats going on. and here are some
reference examples of how various overlaps compare :
.
APPROXIMATE SOLID LIFTER ADVERTISED OVERLAP PERFORMANCE

REFERENCE CHART
300ci400ci500+ci.Typical usage
10*.25*. .40*. towing
30*.45*.. .60*..ordinary street
50*.62.5*.. .75*street performance
70*.80*90*..street/strip
85*.92.5*100*..race
95*.105*.115*..Pro race
.
Heres the CORRECT way to calculate your cams ADVERTISED OVERLAP which
is needed for the chart above:
Add your intake and exhaust advertised duration (typically shown as duration at .015
tappet lift. NOTE: duration at .050 tappet lift will NOT give you the correct advertised
duration value)
Divide that answer by 4
Subtract the lobe separation angle (LSA) from that answer
Multiply that answer by 2, and you have the CORRECT advertised overlap to use in
the chart above
NOTE: Because of the differences resulting from not having any lash, and the way
hydraulic cam advertised duration is rated, if you want to figure the advertised
overlap for a HYDRAULIC LIFTER cam, so that you can use the chart above,
REDUCE the Hydraulic cams listed ADVERTISED DURATION (typically shown as
duration at .006 tappet lift) by 8*, for both intake and exhaust, then follow the
calculation procedure as shown above.
If you consider OVERLAP rather than LSA, you can make a much better decision about
the cam you select for your next build.
540 RAT
.
====================
.
====================
.
5.LEAK DOWN TEST vs COMPRESSION TEST WHICH IS BEST?
Using a compression tester to check the basic condition of an engine is better than
nothing, but it is NOT the best choice. Compression test results can be inaccurate and
inconsistent. This is because the condition of the battery, variations in ambient
temperature, and the effects of the presence or lack of oil around the rings which helps
seal them, as you go from the first cylinder to the last cylinder, and/or if the engine has
been sitting, can all affect the results. This makes a compression test only a mediocre
unreliable test at best.
Leakdown testing is by far the BEST METHOD for checking an engines basic
condition. It is done by checking each cylinder at TDC of the compression stroke. And
any leakage heard, helps to pinpoint where any problems are located. Air leaking out of
the carb indicates a leaking intake valve. Air leaking out of the exhaust system indicates
a leaking exhaust valve. Air leaking out of a breather indicates ring leakage. And air
leaking out of the radiator cap opening indicates a leaking head gasket.
Ive tested the 3 different types of leakdown testers.
One is a single gauge tester that reads leakdown percentage directly. This one is NOT
recommended because its accuracy is typically not the best.
Another one is a dual gauge low input pressure (typically around 35 psi or less,
depending on the particular unit) type that has one psi gauge and one gauge face that
shows leakdown percentage directly. These are usually fairly inexpensive, and are also
NOT recommended because of their typical inaccuracy.
And the last type is a matching dual psi gauge high input pressure (usually can go up to
100 psi) type. This type is convenient to use, and has good accuracy, making it clearly
the best of the 3 leakdown tester types. So, if you decide to get a leakdown tester, do
yourself a favor and get this type.
Note: Input pressure can be referred to in two ways, static and dynamic. Static means
you set the regulator to the desired input pressure, say 80 psi (more on that below) with
the tester NOT connected to the engine yet.
Then once you do connect the tester to the engine, the pressure will drop somewhat,
becoming dynamic input pressure. You can then readjust the regulator to bring that
dynamic input pressure back up to the original 80 psi, if you want. But Ive found no
difference at all in the final leakdown percentage results between doing that, or just
letting the pressure drop somewhat and leaving it there. So, the most convenient method
is to simply set the static input pressure to 80 psi and simply leave it.
The way to get to the final answer for a given test is:
For example, after you connect the 80 psi static pressurized tester to the engine, the left
side regulator controlled gauge may say something like 70 psi after it drops, while the
right side engine leakage gauge may say something like 65 psi.
You just plug a few numbers into your calculator, in the following manner:
You ask yourself, 65 psi on the leakage gauge is what % of the 70 psi on the dynamic
input pressure gauge? And you punch into the calculator 65/.70 (dont forget that its
point 70 here) and the answer comes up 92.8, which means that the right side leakage
gauge is showing or holding 92.8% as much as the left side input gauge. And because
the original 70 psi dynamic input pressure was 100% of the dynamic input pressure, you
simply punch into your calculator 100 92.8 = 7.2% leakage in that cylinder, which is
your final accurate answer for that cylinder. Thats all there is to it.
For those who dont use much math, that may seem like too much trouble. But if you
read through what was done a couple of times, and then actually do it a couple of times,
youll see that its no big deal at all. And youll be crunching the numbers freely after
the first couple of cylinders.
There is no universally accepted input pressure for automotive leakdown testing. But the
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) has established 80 psi input pressure as their
standard for leakdown testing on piston aircraft engines. And they allow up to 25%
leakdown in those aircraft engines.
That 80 psi input pressure works perfectly fine for car engines too, so I use that as my
input pressure as well.
And the reference chart I use for COLD leakdown testing on High Performance Engines
is:
0-10 % = good condition
10-15% = though not ideal, still acceptable
over 15% = tear down and repair recommended for optimum performance
(for non-performance daily driver/grocery getter type vehicles, over 30% = tear down
and repair recommended)
As a point of reference, my 540ci BBC Street/Strip engine shows a COLD leakdown of
about 3%, using conventional Speed Pro rings, with a top ring end gap of .021 and a
second ring end gap of .027. And keep in mind that anytime you do a leakdown test, at
least with conventional rings, you will hear some air leakage. Even for the small amount
of leakdown that my engine shows, I can still hear some air leakage hissing out of the
breathers, from the ring end gaps.
Heres the excellent leakdown tester that I use and like real well. Its from Goodson
Tools and Supplies for Engine Builders
http://www.goodson.com/Dual-Gauge_Leak-Down_Tester/
540 RAT
====================
.
====================
.
6.CAN YOU REALLY SUCK THE OIL PAN DRY?
From time to time, you will hear someone claim they had an issue with sucking the oil
pan dry because of running a high volume oil pump. But, sucking the pan dry because
of the oil pump size is only an OLD WIVES TALE with no truth to it at all. An oil
pump can only pump as much oil out of the pan, as the motor will bleed off through all
its clearances. Beyond that, the oil pump reaches bypass pressure and simply returns any
excess oil to the pumps intake side, or else the relief valve releases the excess oil
directly back into the pan. Either way, its not sucking that extra amount of oil out of the
pan. Therefore, its leaving a larger volume of oil in the pan. And if for some reason
the bypass isnt large enough, then the pressure would HAVE TO GO UP.
Once an oil pump reaches bypass pressure, it makes no difference whether the pump is
std volume or high volume, it wont drain oil from the pan any quicker. Pressure is
pressure, no matter how it is generated. So, if a std volume pump cant pump the pan
dry, then neither can a high volume pump at the same pressure.
In order to suck the pan dry, youd have to have insufficient drain-back. Blaming the
pump, would be misidentifying the problem. Sure the pump gets the oil up to the top,
but its drain-back that gets it back to the pan. So, just be sure that you have plenty of
drain-back capacity and it would be impossible to pump the pan dry.
While dyno testing my 540ci BBC with .003 clearance on the rods and mains, using
5W30 synthetic oil, and using a Titan high volume gerotor oil pump, it maintained a
rock steady 80 psi (the preset relief valve setting) from about 5,000 rpm on up, with no
pressure drop AT ALL. So, there was no sign of aerated oil. Now, with a pump that big,
generating that much oil pressure, and using oil that thin, if an engine was ever going to
pump the pan dry, that should have been it, right?
But it never happened, and it maintained oil pressure better than most Ive seen. The
thinner oil will also drain back better, but it will have also passed more oil through the
engine, providing better flow/lubrication and cooling. One thing I did during the engine
build, was to enlarge the drain-back holes in the AFR heads, to twice their original area.
And if thats all it took for sufficient drain-back to keep from pumping the pan dry, then
keeping the pan full of oil is NOT Rocket Science.
NOTE: The information here about oil pumps and oil drain-back, as it relates to
concerns about an engine sucking its own oil pan dry, absolutely applies to statically
mounted engines on a dyno as well as to engines being operated dynamically in a
vehicle. The only difference is that engines being operated dynamically in a vehicle also
have the additional requirement for an oil pan design that will keep the oil pump pickup
submerged in oil during dynamic operation, rather than letting the oil be sloshed away
from the pickup, which would starve the engine of oil. But, starving the engine of oil
because of oil being sloshed away from the pickup, and concerns about the engine
sucking its own pan dry, are NOT the same thing.
540 RAT
.
====================
.
====================
.
7.DYNAMIC COMPRESSION RATIO (DCR) VS STATIC COMPRESSION
RATIO (SCR)
Most every gearhead believes that he understands compression ratio numbers, and
simply takes them at face value. The normal compression ratio that everyone talks about
and sees on spec sheets is technically called STATIC compression ratio (SCR). That
is always THE compression ratio being discussed unless otherwise specified.
And it of course comes from:
The total cylinder/head gasket/combustion chamber volume at BDC (bottom dead
center), which we will call V large.
Then divide that total volume at BDC by the combustion chamber volume at TDC (top
dead center), call that V small. So, you have (V large / V small) = Static compression
ratio. As the name implies, it is a ratio of the max total volume divided by the small
volume.
The 4 strokes are of course:
1. Intake
2. Compression
3. Power
4. Exhaust
And thats all well and good for textbook learning, but in a real running engine, things
arent so cut and dried. The problem is that an engine never sees or feels the static
compression ratio number. So, that makes the static compression ratio more or less a
theoretical reference tool.
The difference in a running engine is that the cylinder volume needed to determine a
running or Dynamic compression ratio (DCR), is not calculated with the piston at BDC.
It is calculated with the piston at the position where the intake valve just closes. It is
only at this point, that true compression can actually begin.
Here are the Intake and Exhaust valve timing events at .050 tappet lift (meaning lobe
lift or lifter lift, NOT valve lift), per my 540ci BBC engines cam card:
In. opens at 25* BTDC (before top dead center)
In. closes at 61* ABDC (after bottom dead center) = 266* duration at .050 tappet lift
Ex. opens at 64* BBDC (before bottom dead center)
Ex. closes at 28* ATDC (after top dead center) = 272* duration at .050 tappet lift
As you can see, there is overlapping everywhere. This is done to optimize engine
performance by making use of dynamic intake charge ramming effects and dynamic
exhaust gas scavenging effects. So, actual running engine specs dont fit neatly into the
basic idea of the simple and separate 4 strokes. In order to calculate DCR from a useful
intake valve closing point, rather than the .050 tappet lift timing shown above from the
cam card, you need to use the Cam makers advertised tappet lift value.
For my Comp Cams steel billet solid roller cam, the advertised duration specs are given
at .015 tappet lift. But my cam card does not provide the actual intake and exhaust
timing events at that .015 tappet lift spec. So, I manually measured and calculated the
piston/crankshaft position at the intake valve closing point based on .015 tappet lift of
my actual engine. I did this during engine assembly mock up, where I could also take
into account valve lash, rocker arm geometry, and rocker arm ratio. By doing it this
way, I ended up with very precise numbers, which were used to get the most accurate
final results. But, to get numbers this precise, it required that I determine the actual
DCR after the fact, rather than determining it before buying any parts. So, I had to make
some careful calculations earlier, in order to end up as close to my target as possible.
I ended up with my intake valves closing at 80.5* ABDC (or only 99.5* from TDC,
rather than the theoretically ideal of BDC or 180* BTDC). This position had the piston
2.805 from TDC.
And considering that my stroke is 4.250, this means that my piston had traveled 34%
up the cylinder before the intake valve had closed, and compression could finally begin.
I have a fairly large bad boy street/strip cam, and the larger the cams duration, the later
the intake valve will close.
Then to do the calculations for DCR, its from the total cylinder/head gasket/combustion
chamber volume at the point of intake valve closing. Call that value DV large. Then
divide all that by the combustion chamber volume at TDC, the same value that was used
above to calculate the SCR, which was called simply V small. So, you have (DV large
/ V small) = Dynamic compression ratio. As the name implies, it is a ratio of the large
volume divided by the small volume. It is of course the same process that is used to
determine SCR, except for the DCR, the large volume (DV large) is a much smaller
value. And since the TDC volume (V small) was used for both SCR and DCR
calculations, you can see how changing that TDC volume will change both types of
compression ratios. They are linked by that V small value.
After crunching all the numbers, I ended up with an actual running engine compression
ratio, or dynamic compression ratio (DCR) of 7.43 to 1. So, my two compression ratio
numbers are:
Static Compression Ratio (SCR) = 10.75:1, which is the one seen on spec sheets
Dynamic Compression Ratio (DCR) = 7.43:1, which is the one the engine actually
sees/feels
You can see that the dynamic compression ratio is a far cry from the more commonly
referenced static compression ratio of 10.75 to 1. This 7.43 DCR is what the engine
actually sees/feels and is what primarily determines its octane requirement. And as
you have seen by now, the cam and its intake valve closing point, is the primary factor
for determining an engines DCR. Change your cam, change you DCR.
If your Hotrod is on the ragged edge of detonating/pinging, you could switch to a cam
with more duration, which will reduce your DCR and make the engine less sensitive to
the octane it requires, because of a later intake closing point. That is just the opposite of
what some folks might think. Because theyd likely think if their Hotrod was on the
ragged edge of detonating/pinging, theyd need a milder cam. But, that would be going
the wrong direction. Because a milder cam with less duration, would close the intake
valve sooner, increasing the DCR. And that would make the engine even more
sensitive to the octane it requires.
As an example, my cam has a 108* LSA (lobe separation angle), and the narrower this
is, the sooner the intake valve closes, thus upping the DCR. And my cold cranking
compression checked out to be 175 psi. But another very similar BBC engine with the
same displacement and the same SCR, but with a wider 112* LSA, checked out to have
only 165 psi cold cranking compression, due to its later intake valve closing, and thus
lower DCR.
General approximate guidelines for DCR, though not absolute, are that a DCR of 7.5 to
8.5 will make best power for a street engine running 91 octane or higher. And the lower
the DCR is in that range the better, for avoiding detonation problems.
Note: Race engines using race gas, can tolerate higher DCRs up to about as high as 9:1.
As you can see, my 7.43 DCR came in quite close to the conservative 7.5 DCR number I
had been targeting. I wanted to stay at the lower end of the recommended range so that
my engine could tolerate Californias winter blend of pump premium, which has been
known to fall below the octane number that we see with the summer blend. Call it
adding a bit more margin of safety. Because detonation can cause ugly failures that you
must avoid at all cost.
On top of that, I wanted to run a lot of ignition timing advance at low rpm, for crisp and
quick throttle response. And staying at the lower end of the DCR range, allows me to do
that without issue. Its also no secret that larger engines, say upper 400 cubic inches and
above, are big enough that they can absorb a low DCR and/or big cams with ease, so
that you wont even notice it.
BOTTOM LINE: The critical compression ratio that really counts, is the Dynamic
Compression Ratio (DCR). OEMs of course design their engines based on DCR. Thats
why a lot of high performance, high rpm, factory stock engines with more cam duration
and/or wider LSAs (which results in a later intake valve closing), are running higher
SCRs, because that brings the DCR back into the desired range.
This lowering of the DCR, due to the late closing of the intake valve, is the reason why
aftermarket Hotrod and Racing cam manufacturers spec a higher static compression
ratio for their larger cams, because that gets the DCR into the proper range.
NOTE: HP = (Torque x rpm)/5252.
Little engines can make big HP, if you spin them to a high rpm. And in order to spin
them to a high rpm, you need a large duration cam for the engine to breathe. But of
course a large duration cam means a later closing intake valve, thus a lower DCR. So,
you adjust the static compression ratio (SCR) to set the DCR to right where you want it.
That allows you to have a very high performance engine that runs on ordinary pump
gas. Heres an example of just that:
The 2011 Yamaha YZF-R6 (600cc in-line 4 cylinder Sport Bike)
Its short 1.673 stroke allows it to rev to a 16,000 rpm redline, with only a 74.4 ft/sec
average piston speed, while still being under the OEM limit of 80 ft/sec.
And its large duration cam that allows it to breathe enough to rev to 16,000 rpm, would
have lowered the DCR unacceptably, except for the amazingly high 13.1 to 1 SCR
which brings the DCR back up to an acceptable level. And the DCR is still set low
enough so that even with the 13.1 SCR, it can still operate safely on ordinary pump
premium gas.
After reading this, you may never look at the commonly referenced static compression
ratio (SCR) the same way again. What is REALLY the most important compression
ratio, is the Dynamic Compression Ratio (DCR). Because that is one of the primary
factors determining how well your engine will run, and what its octane requirement will
be.
540 RAT
.
====================
.
====================
.
8.0W40 vs 5W30 vs 0W30
On the Corvette C6, Z06 Forum, perhaps the most popular oil the U.S. guys like to use is
what they call, the 0W40 Euro blend Mobil 1. This oil is what GM calls for in the
Owners Manual and also on the oil filler cap on C6 Z06s sold in Canada and Europe,
whereas 5W30 Mobil 1 is called for in the U.S. The rationale the U.S. Corvette owners
typically use for choosing this 0W40 Euro blend Mobil 1 instead of following GMs
recommendation, is the thinking that this oil may have more zinc than U.S. oil, and their
mistaken belief that more zinc and a higher viscosity can provide better wear protection,
as well as their mistaken belief that 5W30 Mobil 1 is not very good.
Also, on Bob is the Oil Guy Forum, 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle),
API SL, European Formula, made in Germany and sold in the U.S., is very popular.
This is apparently because they favor the better cold flowing 0W cold viscosity rating
(which is a good idea), and because of the thinking that this oil may have more zinc than
U.S. oil, and their mistaken belief that more zinc can provide better wear protection.
The Z06 guys as well as the Bob Forum guys, obviously feel this way based on emotion
and guessing/speculation, because they clearly never had any test data to
evaluateuntil now.
All this calls for performing Engineering Wear Protection testing those 0W40 and 5W30
Corvette Z06 oils, as well as testing 0W30 oils, to see how they all compare. Then Z06
owners and the Bob Forum guys can take a look at actual hard test data numbers that
will show the facts. With that information in hand, they can make an informed decision
when it comes to selecting an oil that will truly provide them with the best wear
protection.
So, I tested the following motor oils:
0W40 and 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra

0W40, 5W30 and 0W30 Mobil 1
0W40, 5W30 and 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (in the black bottle)
NOTE: Castrols top of the line 100% Edge motor oil, comes in the gold bottle.
Here is how these oils ranked just among themselves, according to their Wear Protection
Capability. All wear protection capability testing was performed at 230* F, and the
higher the psi value, the better the wear protection. I also included values for the onset
of thermal breakdown for comparison (the thermal breakdown values were rounded to
the nearest 5* increment):
1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 115,612 psi, which puts it in the
INCREDIBLE wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 280* F

2. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 105,875 psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE
wear protection category.

3. 5W30 Castrol Edge w/Syntec, API SN (black bottle, formerly Castrol Syntec)
synthetic = 85,179 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = TBD (I did not test this particular oil for this when I
had it on hand)
4. 0W40 Mobil 1, API SN, European Formula, made in the U.S., synthetic = 82,644 psi,
which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.

5. 0W40 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN, synthetic = 81,863 psi, which puts it in the GOOD

6. 0W30 Mobil 1, API SN, Advanced Fuel Economy, synthetic = 81,240 psi, which puts
it in the GOOD wear protection category.

7. 0W40 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SN, European Formula, made in
Belgium and sold in the U.S., synthetic = 69,307 psi, which puts it in the MODEST

8. 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SL, European Formula, made in
Germany and sold in the U.S., synthetic = 69,302 psi, which puts it in the MODEST

As you can see from these actual Engineering test values, all the 5W30 oils provide
better wear protection than any of the 0W oils. But even so, any of these oils would be
acceptable for normal daily driver use. However, for highly loaded High Performance
applications where the best possible wear protection is desired, the obvious choice
would be 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM or 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN, which are the only
oils in this test that provide INCREDIBLE wear protection.
So, GM got it right about which oil to recommend in their U.S. Z06 Corvettes. One can
only speculate that perhaps they expect the U.S. cars to be run harder, so they call for
the best protection in those engines. Although, general availability in Canada and
Europe may also play a part in what oil they recommend. Whatever the case, both oil
viscosities had to meet GMs endurance testing requirements.
Folks can of course decide for themselves which oil they want to run in their own cars.
But now, they have the accurate test data to make an informed decision.
NOTE: After this piece was originally written, 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM has
been phased out and replaced TWICE by a newer API SN version. See the Wear
Protection Ranking List in Section 1, for the current psi value and ranking position.
540 RAT
.
====================
.
====================
.
9.AFTERMARKET ZINC ADDITIVES DO THEY WORK?
Do aftermarket zinc additives actually work? To find out, I tested ZDDPlus zinc additive
in 3 low zinc oils, and I also tested Edelbrock Zinc additive in 3 different low zinc oils.
In each case, the recommended amount of additive was used. And in all 6 cases, these
high zinc additives ruined the oils and made them WORSE than they were before the
extra zinc was added, by SIGNIFICANTLY reducing their wear protection capabilities.
These additives did the opposite of what was promised. That is not surprising, because
most major Oil Companies say to never add anything to their oils, because doing that
will ruin the oil by upsetting the carefully balanced additive package that their Chemical
Engineers designed into them. And that is precisely what was seen when using these
high zinc additives.
So, do yourself a favor and dont add any aftermarket zinc additives to your motor oil,
because you will only make your oils wear protection capability WORSE than it was to
begin with, no matter what anyone tells you.
Here are the results of that testing:
* This combination ranked 113 out of 129 oils tested: ZDDPlus added to Royal Purple
20W50, API SN, synthetic = 63,595 psi
promised.
.
* This combination ranked 122 out of 129 oils tested: ZDDPlus added to OReilly
(house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional = 56,728 psi
promised.
* This combination ranked 123 out of 129 oils tested: ZDDPlus added to Motorcraft
5W30, API SN, synthetic = 56,243 psi
promised.
* This combination ranked 125 out of 129 oils tested: Edelbrock Zinc Additive added
to Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 54,044 psi
to Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional = 51,545 psi
to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 50,202 psi
A motor oils wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive
package (where the extreme pressure anti-wear components are added to the base oil)
as a whole, not just by the amount of zinc present. You will be best served by
choosing a motor oil based on its wear protection capability, because zinc levels alone
dont mean a thing. In fact, MANY WIPED FLAT TAPPET LOBES COULD HAVE
BEEN AVOIDED, INCLUDING DURING BREAK-IN, if people had not blindly
believed that all high zinc oils provide all the wear protection they need. Because
nothing could be further from the truth. Engineering testing has proven over and over
again, that some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc
oils only provide poor wear protection. And without wear protection test data, you have
no way of knowing which ones are good and which ones are not.
The outdated thinking that high zinc levels are needed, is simply Folklore not based on
the facts. No one can prove that more zinc provides more wear protection, because it is
simply not true. Plenty of people will swear that you need high levels of zinc, but ask
them to provide proof instead of mere opinion. They cannot do it because Physics and
Chemistry proves otherwise.
Even though aftermarket zinc additives failed in every test, there were a couple of other
aftermarket additives that did in fact improve motor oil wear protection capability.
Prolong significantly improved every motor oil it was tested in, and Oil Extreme
Concentrate significantly improved lower ranked oils.
Bottom line: If you really want to provide your engine with the best possible wear
protection, read my entire Oil Test Data Blog, then make your own decision. The engine
you save, may be your own.
540 RAT
.
====================
.
====================
.
10.BREAK-IN OILS DO WE REALLY NEED THEM?
First, a little background info so that we are all on the same page. The independent and
unbiased Engineering testing I perform at a REPRESENTATIVE OPERATIONAL
TEMPERATURE, to establish motor oil wear protection capability, is a dynamic
friction test under load, similar to how an engine dyno test is a dynamic HP/Torque test
under load. Both tests show how their subjects truly perform in the real world, no matter
what brand names are involved, no matter what outrageous claims may have been made,
and no matter what their spec sheets may say.
My Motor Oil Wear Protection Ranking List of over 150 different oils, is proven by
the Physics and Chemistry involved, and it EXACTLY matches real world Track
Street experience (test data validation doesnt 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.
.
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 oils wear
protection capability. The naysayers cannot back-up anything they say, but I back-up
everything I say with hard Engineering test data that exactly matches real world
experience.
.
My Test Data Blog now has over 95,000 views worldwide (at the time this was written).
Of course simply listing the number of views by itself, is not intended to indicate
validation of the test data (validation is shown throughout the Blog). But, indicating the
number of views does show that an enormous number of people worldwide recognize
the value, understand the importance, and make use of the motor oil test data FACTS
included there, that cannot be found anywhere else. And as a result, they are posting and
sharing links to my Blog, all over the world. See for yourself. A link is provided at the
end of this posting.
*****
Now, on with Break-In Oil information.
.
So-called Break-In oils are typically hyped by claiming they provide for quick ring
seating while providing extra wear protection for other parts. Of course no oil can be
formulated to allow the wear of only certain parts, AND to prevent the wear of
other parts, at the same time. It has to be formulated for one or the other, which we will
see below.
.
When impossible Marketing claims like that are made, it is only to sell product, no
matter what the truth really is. Many would call that blatant false advertising, which
motor oils are famous for. The absolute best oils and the absolute worst oils all make the
same claim about how great they are. Until my wear protection capability test data
became available, buyers had no way of knowing which oils actually live up to those
claims and which ones dont. Because we now know that looking at the zinc level alone,
is absolutely worthless, and tells you nothing about an oils wear protection capability.
Lets 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
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
TBN = 10.6

.
Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 1170 ppm
phos = 1039 ppm
moly = 0 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 couldnt 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, lets 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 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
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
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
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 Ive performed, showed that the level of zinc has nothing to do with an
oils wear protection capability, nor its ranking against other oils. And weve 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 Ive tested previously.
And they all produced test results of at least 90,000 psi, which put them all in the
INCREDIBLE or OUTSTANDING WEAR PROTECTION categories.
.
5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic = 112,464 psi
zinc = 1724 ppm
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
moly = 0 ppm
.
10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
phos = 1518 ppm
moly = 784 ppm

.
10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phos = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
.
10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phos = 1112 ppm
moly = 162 ppm

.
30 wt Red Line Race Oil, full synthetic = 96,470 psi
zinc = 2207 ppm
phos = 2052 ppm
moly = 1235 ppm
10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil, full synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
moly = 52 ppm
.
10W30 Quaker State Defy, API SL (semi-synthetic) = 90,226 psi
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm
moly = 99 ppm
As youve 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 oils 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 dont. If the high zinc believers dont 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 wouldnt 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 isnt 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. Its 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.
.
Its 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 oils carefully balanced additive package and
its resulting chemical properties. And they were absolutely correct, because that is
precisely what the test data showed.
Its 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. Thats why
you often hear people say to break-in an engine with conventional oil, then later switch
to synthetic, even though they arent 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 oils 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 oils wear protection capability. No more than the
level of gas in your tank determines how much HP your engine makes.
.
Weve 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 arent that simple, lets 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. Weve 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 Fords 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 Ive
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 Ive
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 BreakIn 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, heres 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, heres 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 dont 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 wont 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 Id 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.
540 RAT
.
=====================
.
=====================
.
11.CAN YOU ALWAYS COUNT ON HIGH ZINC MOTOR OIL?
Can you always count on high zinc motor oil to provide the most desirable wear
protection? To find out, I performed Engineering Wear Protection Capability testing
on a group 40 different high zinc oils to see how high zinc oils compare among
themselves. And the fact is, not all high zinc oils provide the same wear protection. See
below for details:
Wear protection reference categories are:
The higher the psi number, the better the wear protection.
1. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
phos = 3489 ppm
ZDDP= 3000 ppm
use.
2. 10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
phos = 1518 ppm
ZDDP = 1500 ppm
NOTE: Due to its very low TBN value, this oil is only suitable for short term racing use,
and is not suitable for street use.
3. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phos = 1544 ppm
ZDDP = 1500 ppm

4. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phos = 1112 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

5. 30 wt Red Line Race Oil synthetic = 96,470 psi
zinc = 2207 ppm
phos = 2052 ppm
ZDDP = 2100 ppm
use.
6. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
ZDDP = 1400 ppm

7. 10W30 Quaker State Defy, API SL semi-synthetic = 90,226 psi
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm
ZDDP = 1000 ppm

8. 10W30 Joe Gibbs HR4 Hotrod Oil synthetic = 86,270 psi
zinc = 1247 ppm
phos = 1137 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

9. 15W40 RED LINE Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O = 85,663 psi
zinc = 1615 ppm
phos = 1551 ppm
ZDDP = 1500 ppm
10. 5W30 Lucas API SM synthetic = 76,584 psi
zinc = 1134 ppm
phos = 666 ppm
ZDDP = 900 ppm

11. 5W50 Castrol Edge with Syntec API SN, synthetic, formerly Castrol Syntec, black
bottle = 75,409 psi
zinc = 1252 ppm
phos = 1197 ppm
ZDDP = 1200 ppm

12. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) synthetic = 74,860 psi
zinc = 1421 ppm
phos = 1338 ppm
ZDDP = 1300 ppm

13. 5W40 MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4,
CH-4 and ACEA E7 = 74,312 psi
zinc = 1211 ppm
phos = 1168 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

14. 15W40 CHEVRON DELO 400LE Diesel Oil, conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus,
CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM, = 73,520 psi
zinc = 1519 ppm
phos = 1139 ppm
ZDDP = 1300 ppm

15. 15W40 MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER Diesel Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4
Plus, CI-4, CH-4/SM, SL = 73,300 psi
zinc = 1297 ppm
phos = 1944 ppm
ZDDP = 1600 ppm

16. 15W40 Farm Rated Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ
(conventional) = 73,176 psi
zinc = 1325ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
ZDDP = 1200 ppm

17. 15W40 NEW SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus,
CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM = 72,022 psi
zinc = 1454 ppm
phos = 1062 ppm
ZDDP = 1200 ppm
18. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 (semi-synthetic) = 71,377 psi
zinc = 1621 ppm
phos = 1437 ppm
ZDDP = 1500 ppm

19. 15W40 OLD SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH = 71,214 psi
zinc = 1171 ppm
phos = 1186 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

zinc = 1557 ppm
phos = 1651 ppm
ZDDP = 1600 ppm

21. 15W50 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 70,235 psi
zinc = 1133 ppm
phos = 1,168 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

22. 30wt Edelbrock Break-In Oil conventional = 69,160 psi
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm
ZDDP = 1500 ppm

23. 10W40 Edelbrock synthetic = 68,603 psi
zinc = 1193 ppm
phos = 1146 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

24. 15W40 LUCAS MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4,
CF/SL = 66,476 psi
zinc = 1441 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
ZDDP = 1300 ppm

25. 10W30 Royal Purple HPS (High Performance Street) synthetic = 66,211 psi
zinc = 1774 ppm
phos = 1347 ppm
ZDDP = 1500 ppm

26. 10W40 Valvoline 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil conventional, API SJ = 65,553 psi
zinc = 1154 ppm
phos = 1075 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

27. 5W30 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL synthetic = 64,175 psi
zinc = 1765 ppm
phos = 2468 ppm
ZDDP = 2100 ppm

28. ZDDPlus added to Royal Purple 20W50, API SN, synthetic = 63,595 psi
ZDDP = 2200 ppm
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 oils chemical composition. And that is precisely what we see
here. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oils wear prevention
capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
29. Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil conventional = 62,931 psi
zinc = 1170 ppm
phos = 1039 ppm
ZDDP = 1100 ppm

30. 10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil, conventional = 62,538 psi
zinc = 2116 ppm
phos = 1855 ppm
ZDDP = 1900 ppm

31. 10W30 Comp Cams Muscle Car & Street Rod Oil, synthetic blend = 60,413 psi
zinc = 1673 ppm
phos = 1114 ppm
ZDDP = 1300 ppm

32. 10W40 Torco TR-1 Racing Oil with MPZ conventional = 59,905 psi
zinc = 1456 ppm
phos = 1150 ppm
ZDDP = 1300 ppm

33. ZDDPlus added to OReilly (house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional = 56,728
psi
ZDDP = 2400 ppm
promised.
34. 10W40 Summit Racing Premium Racing Oil, API SL conventional = 59,483 psi
zinc = 1764 ppm
phos = 1974 ppm
Claimed ZDDP level on the bottle = 1800 ppm
NOTE: Summit discontinued this line of oil, as of spring of 2013.

35. ZDDPlus added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 56,243 psi
ZDDP = 2500 ppm
promised.
36. Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, synthetic =
54,044 psi
ZDDP = 1400 ppm
37. 10W30 Comp Cams Break-In Oil conventional = 51,749 psi
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm
ZDDP = 2800 ppm

38. Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional = 51,545
psi
ZDDP = 1400 ppm
39. Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 50,202
psi
ZDDP = 1400 ppm
40. 30wt Lucas Break-In Oil conventional = 49,455 psi
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm
ZDDP = 4000 ppm

So, as you saw above, the highest ranking high zinc oil that provided the BEST WEAR
PROTECTION of this group of 40 high zinc oils, had 3000 ppm ZDDP. But, the lowest
ranking high zinc oil had one third MORE ZDDP at 4000 ppm. Even though this lowest
ranked oil had far more zinc in it, it provided LESS THAN HALF AS MUCH WEAR
PROTECTION, making it by far the worst of all 40 oils tested. Then the 4th place oil
had only 1100 ppm ZDDP, and the 7th place oil had only 1000 ppm ZDDP.
So, the results above show:
1. My tester and test procedure have no problem at all showing excellent performing
high zinc oils. The fact is, my oil testing performs worst case torture testing on motor
oil. So, an oil HAS TO BE GOOD to produce good results. And we saw that many high
zinc oils produced excellent results here.
2. This is ABSOLUTE PROOF that not all high zinc oils have equal wear protection
capabilities. And why would anyone think that all high zinc oils are good? Not all tires
are good. Not all cylinder heads are good. Not all camshafts are good. The world just
doesnt work that way. Some high zinc oils are quite good and provide excellent wear
protection, while other high zinc oils are not good at all, and provide rather poor wear
protection. It just depends on the particular oil in question. And that makes it totally
clear here, that you simply CANNOT predict an oils wear protection capability by
looking only at its zinc level. Life is just NOT that simple. If you only look at zinc
levels, that is no better than guessing. So, if anyone tells you that you need high levels
of zinc for more wear protection, even if it comes from a Cam Company, dont believe a
word of it. Because as you can see above, they have no idea what they are talking about.
Would you really want to use the 40th ranked last place oil simply because it has more
zinc than the number one ranked oil here? That is just what youd be doing if you
believed the incorrect advice about only looking at zinc levels. In fact, MANY WIPED
FLAT TAPPET LOBES COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, INCLUDING DURING
BREAK-IN, if people had not blindly believed that all high zinc oils provide all the
wear protection they need. Because nothing could be further from the truth.
3. A motor oils wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive
package as a whole, with the emphasis on its additive package which is what contains
the extreme pressure anti-wear components, and NOT simply by how much zinc is
present. The ONLY way to know for sure how much wear protection any given oil can
provide, is to look at dynamic wear testing under load results, such as I have provided
above.
My motor oil testing, is very similar in concept to dyno testing an engine. An engine
dyno test is also dynamic testing under load. For the guys who just want to look at a
motor oil zinc level reference chart, that is like looking at an engines build sheet
instead of its dyno print out. Which do you think has more value?
For actual motor oil facts, go to the link at the bottom, and read my entire motor oil
testing write-up, then decide for yourself what you want to believe. Actual test data
facts, or the common high zinc MYTH? The engine you save, may be your own.
540 RAT
.
==================
.
==================
.
12.DIESEL OIL IS IT THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE
GASOLINE ENGINES?
Before we get into the eye-opening Diesel oil test data, lets take a look at some
fundamental aspects of motor oil wear protection, so that we are all on the same page.
The amount of misinformation and misunderstanding about motor oil is absolutely mind
boggling, even though the basic technology of motor oil is NOT Rocket Science. It is
simply unbelievable how much COMPLETELY WRONG information is out there on
the Internet and on the various Forums.
And of course once wrong information has been repeated countless times, it becomes
fact as far as most people know, even though it is completely worthless. But, you really
cant blame folks for not knowing any better. Because in addition to a ton of bad
information being out there, motor oil advertising hype is often misleading or downright
false, almost no one ever tests anything to know for sure what is true and what is not,
aftermarket companies sell bogus oil additive products, including zinc additives, that
only wreck an oils chemical properties, and any test data outside of the oil companies
themselves, is virtually impossible to find ANYWHEREuntil now.
If you are interested in seeing the FACTS from real world independent and unbiased
Engineering Test Data on motor oil, then the information below is for you. At the end of
this write-up, Ive also included a link to my motor oil Wear Test ranking sheet for
anyone to use, who might be interested. You can choose any oil from that list, and know
exactly how it compares to other oils in terms of wear protection.
THE single most common misunderstanding about motor oil is that higher zinc levels
provide better wear protection. That has been repeated over and over again so many
times over the years, that people just assume it is correct. But the fact is, that thinking is
COMPLETELY FALSE.
Here are the FACTS:
Zinc is used/sacrificed in very small quantities at time, so the total amount present in
your oil does not change how much wear protection the oil provides, as long as you
dont run out of zinc. Lab Testing and Wear Testing analysis proves/confirms that
more zinc provides LONGER wear protection, NOT MORE wear protection. This is not
a new discovery. In fact, Ed Hackett wrote an article some years ago, titled More than
you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil. And in that article he says the exact same
thing, so its been well known for a long time. You can Google his article if you like,
and see for yourself.
An analogy for the zinc level in motor oil would be the amount of gas in your tank. Gas
is also used in very small quantities at a time. So, if you have a quarter of a tank or a full
tank, it does NOT change how much power your engine makes, as long as you dont run
out of gas. More gas provides LONGER running time, NOT more power. Its the same
type of idea regarding the amount of zinc in motor oil.
Zinc is used as an extreme pressure, anti-wear additive. But, zinc DOES NOT build-up
over time like some type of plating process. For those who have actually taken an
engine apart that has been running high zinc oil, you know that you dont find a buildup of zinc that looks like some sort of coating or sludge build-up. Zinc does NOT work
that way. And zinc is not even a lubricant until heat and load are applied. Zinc is only
used when there is actual metal to metal contact in the engine. At that point zinc must
react with the heat and load to create the sacrificial film that allows it to protect flattappet camshafts and other highly loaded engine parts.
So, with zinc being sacrificial, it will become depleted over time as it is used up. This
has been proven/confirmed by analysis of new and used oil lab test results. And the
literature from the ZDDPlus zinc additive folks says the exact same thing, if youd
also like to see it there. On top of that, excessively HIGH zinc levels can lead to
INCREASED wear/damage and cast iron erosion. There is such a thing as too much of
a good thing.
So, you really dont want or need a ton of zinc. You simply need enough so that you
dont run out of it with your particular application, thats all. And this is precisely the
reason why the motor oil wear testing Ive been performing, has ALWAYS shown
that the level of zinc does NOT affect how well an oil can provide wear protection. Ive
had many HIGH zinc oils, as well as many modern LOW zinc oils, produce outstanding
results in the wear testing. Ive also had HIGH zinc oils as well as LOW zinc oils that
produced only modest results in the wear testing.
And this brings us to the second most common misunderstanding about motor oil, which
is that modern API certified motor oils cannot provide adequate wear protection for flat
tappet cam lobe/lifter interfaces. This has also been repeated over and over again so
many times over the years, that people just assume it is correct. But the fact is, that
thinking is also COMPLETELY FALSE.
Wear protection is determined only by the base oil and its additive package as a whole,
and NOT just by how much zinc is present. There is nothing magical or sacred about
zinc. It is just one of a number of motor oil additive package components that can be
used for extreme pressure anti-wear purposes. The other components that are typically
Oil Company proprietary secrets, can be added to, or used in place of zinc. And most
modern API SM and SN certified oils have shown in my wear testing to be quite good
when it comes to providing wear protection, and have even EXCEEDED the protection
provided by many high zinc oils.
So, modern low zinc oils CAN BE USED SAFELY with flat tappet cam setups, even in
engines with radical cams and high spring pressures. Simply choose from the higher
ranked oils on the list at the end of this write-up, and youll be good to go. I know
people whove been using modern low zinc oils in High Performance flat tappet set-ups
for a long time, and theyve had no issue at all.
On a side note:
Whatever you do, DO NOT add aftermarket zinc additives to low zinc oils. Because I
did testing on this exact situation and found that adding zinc to low zinc oils, ruins an
oils chemical properties and SIGNIFICANTLY reduces its wear protection capability.
The Oil Companies always say to never add anything to their oil. Believe them,
because they know what they are talking about. After all, they are the experts on their
own products.
So, back to the topic at hand:
Just looking at an oils spec sheet to see how much zinc is present, tells you
ABOLUTLELY NOTHING about how well that oil can provide wear protection. To
only look at the zinc level to try and predict an oils wear protection capability would be
much like looking at your gas gauge to predict how much power your engine will make.
That kind of thinking simply makes no sense at all. So, throw away that useless motor
oil zinc quantity reference list. In other words, forget about zinc. The ONLY THING
that matters, and the ONLY WAY to tell how well an oil can prevent wear, is to
perform some type of dynamic WEAR TESTING that is done at representative
temperatures. And that is exactly what Ive done here.
The test equipment used here to perform this kind of testing, focuses on an oils load
carrying capacity or film strength, and for good reason. THE single most CRITICAL
capability of any motor oil is its film strength. Everything else it does for your engine
comes AFTER that. Heres why. When oil is down to a very thin film, it is the last line
of defense against metal to metal contact and subsequent wear or damage. And oil film
strength capability DIRECTLY APPLIES to flat tappet lobe/lifter interfaces, cam
gear/distributor gear interfaces, mechanical fuel pump pushrod tip/cam eccentric
interfaces and other highly loaded engine component interfaces. The higher an oils film
strength, the better your engine is protected in these areas.
Oil film strength capability also DIRECTLY APPLIES to cold start-up conditions. In
this case, only an oil film remains on most internal engine components, because most of
the oil drained off after hot shut down. And its no secret that nearly all wear occurs
during start-up when there can be a couple of seconds or even more, depending on the
oil viscosity being used and the ambient air temperature, before a flow of oil reaches all
the components. Before oil flow reaches the components, all you have saving your
engine from wear or damage, is the remaining oils film strength. That makes it another
very important reason why an excellent film strength is highly desirable.
When Amsoil refers to wear scar size comparisons on their website, they are referencing
oil film strength test data. A few years or so ago, when Castrol Edge and Valvoline
SynPower ads talked about their oils providing better wear protection than Mobil 1, they
were referencing oil film strength test data. Pennzoil Ultra, API SM advertised that no
leading synthetic oil provides better wear protection, and they also reference oil film
strength test data. The bottom line is that oil film strength testing and the resulting data,
is the Gold Standard in the motor oil industry, regarding wear protection.
There is no additional value to performing more comprehensive oil testing related to
wear prevention. Because when an oil is thicker than a mere film, it becomes LIQUID
oil. And LIQUIDS are INCOMPRESSIBLE, which of course is how hydraulics work.
But, that refers to 100% PURE LIQUID with no air bubbles what so ever. And the
nature of liquids being incompressible, is a basic FACT of Physics.
So, since liquid oil CANNOT be compressed, there can be NO metal to metal contact,
THUS NO WEAR OR DAMAGE. This means that ALL oils when in incompressible
liquid form, provide the SAME level of wear protection. And it does not matter if they
cost one dollar per quart, or twenty dollars per quart. Nor does it matter how much
zinc/phos is present.
For example, the normal flow of oil between the crank journals and rod or main
bearings, is liquid oil. And the liquid oil in that hydrodynamic wedge is
incompressible, just like any liquid is. For a crank journal to ever touch the bearings, the
oil has to be reduced to only a film, and that film has to be PENETRATED. Because of
course, to achieve metal to metal contact, and thus wear/damage, you have to go
THROUGH the oils film strength to get there.
If conditions cause a flow of liquid oil to be squeezed out of the way, you are right back
to being left with only an oil film, and the need for good film strength. And this is
PRECISELY why we perform OIL FILM STRENGTH testing. The ONLY thing that
separates one oil from another oil, in terms of wear prevention, is the DIFFERENCE
between their film strength capabilities. So, if an oil has sufficient film strength
capability, then you are good to go when it comes to wear protection, no matter how
much zinc is present.
The tester used here, was never intended to reflect exactly what goes on inside a running
engine. It was designed to test oil against oil, nothing else. So, the whole point of my
wear testing was to test oils directly against each other, head to head, back to back, at
a representative operating temperature. Then see how they stacked up against each
other.
For example, if oil A has a 110,000 psi load carrying capacity/film strength (no
matter how much zinc is present) in this test, and oil B has only a 65,000 psi load
carrying capacity/film strength (no matter how much zinc is present) in this test, its
not hard to understand the fact that oil A with its WHOPPING 70% HIGHER
CAPABILITY, will provide a MUCH HIGHER level of reserve wear protection in a
running engine as well (no matter how much zinc is present).
My testing performs severe torture testing on motor oil, which is much harder on the oil,
than what the oil will ever experience inside any running engine. This is a dynamic
friction test under load, and the test results are determined by the size of the wear scar.
And how good an oil is at preventing wear, high zinc or low zinc, is determined in a fair
and straight forward manner. The numbers come out how they come out, depending on
the capability of the oil.
All of the oils are tested at a representative normal operating oil temperature of 230*F, to
make the comparison meaningful. By testing in this manner, it absolutely shows which
oils are better at preventing wear than others. This real world test comparison allows
you to test a large number of oils EXACTLY THE SAME, under controlled and
repeatable conditions, which you simply cannot do in a running engine. And you can
see how they compare right away, without having to wait for 100,000 miles to find out
what happened. With this testing methodology, you can quickly and easily distinguish
between outstanding oils and merely ordinary oils.
The whole thing simply comes down to what is called margin of safety or extra
reserve protection capability. Lets say the lowest ranked oil has a 20% margin of safety
relative to your engines needs, which means that the oils capability exceeds your
engines needs by 20%. So, you are in good shape and you will never see a problem.
But, if something bad happens like an overheating condition, or an oiling condition, or a
loading condition, or some parts heading south, or whatever, and your oil protection
requirements increase to say 50% above your engines typical needs. Now youve just
exceeded the oils capability by a whopping 30%, and your engine is junk. But, what if
youd been running an oil that had a whopping 70% margin of safety to begin with? In
this case, when your engines needs went up 50%, but you still have another 20%
capability above that. So, your engine would still live to fight another day.
So, in the end, it just depends on how much margin of safety an individual is
comfortable with for his particular engine combo. The whole point of all my oil testing,
is having the data to make an informed choice when it comes to choosing the best motor
oil.
I did this testing only for my own knowledge, because there is so much misinformation
and misunderstanding about motor oil. But, I do NOT sell oil, and I do NOT get paid by
any oil company. So, it doesnt matter to me what oil people buy, or why they buy, the
oil they buy. That being the case, I have absolutely no reason to try to make one oil
seem better than another. On the contrary, Im only interested in seeing how they
TRULY differ.
So, there is no Snake Oil pitch going on here. And Im not trying to convince anyone of
anything, Im only sharing my test data results. People can embrace my data or ignore
it. That of course is totally up to them. So, run whatever oil you like, but now youll
have the data to see how oils rank, relative to each other.
NOTE: A motor oils load carrying capacity/film strength capability is NOT the same
thing as slipperiness or friction reduction. Therefore, this type of test data says nothing
at all about the amount of Horsepower one oil will make vs another.
DIESEL OIL TESTING
I always found it a bit curious that some folks would use Diesel oil in High Performance
gasoline engines, rather than the more obvious high quality gas engine oils. I assumed
they figured that Diesel oils had higher zinc levels which most folks mistakenly
thought was needed. Or maybe they figured if that oil works well for hard working
Diesel engines, then it should work for their gas engines as well. But, other than some
lab test reports showing zinc quantities, I havent seen much real data on any of that.
Is it possible that the Diesel oil fans somehow know more than the Oil Companies
Chemical Engineers and Chemists? But, based on only a casual overview, the value of
using Diesel oil in gas engines seemed to be mostly just folklore that had been repeated
over and over, without any real data to support that. So, since Ive been performing a lot
of motor oil testing this year, I thought is was time to do some extensive testing on
Diesel oil, to see once and for all, just what the Diesel oil hype is all about.
So, finally, on with the Diesel Oil test data:
*** The higher the psi result, the higher the Load carrying capacity/Film strength, and
the better the oil is at preventing wear.
*** All oils were tested at 230* F (representative of actual running temperature).
*** Multiple tests were performed on each oil, and those results were averaged to arrive
at each oils final value shown below.
*** Test Result differences between oils of less than 10%, are not significant, and oils
within that range can be considered approximately equivalent.
*** All oil bottles were thoroughly shaken before the samples were taken. This ensured
that all the additive package components were distributed uniformly throughout all the
oil in the bottle, and not settled to the bottom.
*** All the oils here are current new oils, recently purchased, except for the unopened
OLD Rotella T mentioned above.
*** The onset of Thermal Breakdown is determined by the temperature at which the
oil begins to smoke/vaporize. This indicates that the lighter components in the oil are
beginning to boil off, which changes the oils chemical composition for the worse.
Always keep your oil below the point of thermal breakdown. If your oil does get too
hot, then change it at your earliest convenience.
*** Lab Testing for component quantities shown below, was performed by ALS
Tribology (formerly Staveley Labs) in Sparks, Nevada.
*** Diesel engine oils have C-type API certification rating designations. The C is in
reference to Compression ignition engines.
Gas engine oils have S-type API certification rating designations. The S is in
reference to Spark ignition engines.
Here are the 13 Diesel Oils that were tested. And they are ranked in the order of their
Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength values:
1. RED LINE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O
Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength = 85,663 psi
zinc = 1615 ppm
phos = 1551 ppm
moly = 173 ppm
TBN = 8.3
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 285*

2. ROYAL PURPLE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4 /SM, CI-4 PLUS, CH-4,
CI-4
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = TBD
TBN = TBD

3. MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4,
CH-4 and ACEA E7
zinc = 1211 ppm
phos = 1168 ppm
moly = 2 ppm
TBN = 9.3

4. CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4,
SM, SL, Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength = 73,520 psi
zinc = 1519 ppm
phos = 1139 ppm
moly = 80 ppm
TBN = 8.0

5. MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4,
CH-4/SM, SL , Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength = 73,300 psi
zinc = 1297 ppm
phos = 944 ppm
moly = 46 ppm
TBN = 9.8

6. Farm Rated 15W40 Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, conventional, API CI-4, CH-4,
CG-4, CF/SL, SJ
zinc = 1325 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 2 ppm
TBN = 9.3

7. SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CG-4, CF4,CF/SM
zinc = 1454 ppm
phos = 1062 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
TBN = 9.1
NOTE: This new Rotella T has SIGNIFICANTLY MORE zinc than the OLD Rotella T,
NOT LESS as is often claimed. And these two Rotella oils were Lab tested more than a
month apart. So, their component quantities had no chance of being mixed up. This new
Rotellas wear protection capability is just slightly BETTER than the OLD Rotella.
Therefore, the new Rotella is NOT the junk some have claimed.
8. OLD SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH
zinc = 1171 ppm
phos = 1186 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
TBN = 10.1
NOTE: There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING special about this OLD Rotella, as so

many have always claimed. That was only folklore. It is simply ordinary Diesel oil.
9. VALVOLINE PREMIUM BLUE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL, 15W40 conventional,
API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SM
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
TBN = TBD

10. CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, SL, SM,
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
TBN = TBD

11. SHELL ROTELLA T6, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4/SM
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
TBN = TBD

12. LUCAS 15W40 MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4,
CF/SL
zinc = 1441 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 76 ppm
TBN = 11.7

13. CASTROL GTX DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4,
CG-4, CF-4/SN
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge TBD
TBN = TBD

The average value for Thermal Breakdown among the conventional Diesel oils here, was
255*, which is 17* LOWER than among the conventional gas engine oils Ive tested.
The average value for Thermal Breakdown among the synthetic Diesel oils here, was
267*, which is 15* LOWER than among the synthetic gas engine oils Ive tested.
And as you can see with these Diesel oils above, zinc levels alone do NOT establish
their wear prevention ranking. The zinc levels are randomly up and down, relative to the
ranking order. And as you will see in the link to my motor oil ranking list below, zinc
levels clearly have NOTHING to do with an oils protection capability or ranking order.
Also, anyone who has followed my motor oil testing this year, probably noticed that
these Diesel oil Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength psi values are rather low, with
an average value for the whole group of only 72,408 psi. This number would put an oil
for gasoline engines, only in the MODEST PROTECTION category (60,000 to 75,000
psi).
And considering that these oils are intended for use in heavy duty working Diesel
engines as used in big rigs, bulldozers, locomotives, etc, etc, you probably expected to
see some rather impressive psi numbers. But, if you were expecting that, you were
obviously disappointed and maybe even shocked. So, whats going on here?
Obviously since all these diesel oil numbers are so closely clustered together with only
about a 20,000 psi range (compared to the gas engine oil numbers which have a much
larger range of almost 60,000 psi), it is clear that the oil companies intentionally
formulated them to be in this general range. Why would they do that? How can that be
good enough for these hard working diesel engines?
Diesel engines of this type are made very rugged and very durable for the long haul. And
in order to accomplish that, the engines components are designed and sized to keep the
part loading at a modest level. And of course, these engines are known primarily for
their impressive low end torque under boost, but NOT for their high rpm HP. All that
being the case, these oils dont need to have a higher capability. And this type of Diesel
engine typically takes a LOT OF OIL. So, cost becomes a real factor when changing oil.
This means that no oil company is going to make their products way better than needed,
because that would make their products too expensive to be competitive in the
marketplace.
And no one can complain that my test equipment and test procedure do not allow high
zinc oils to perform at their highest level. Because here are some high zinc (over 1100
ppm) conventional, semi-synthetic, and full synthetic gasoline engine oils that Ive
tested previously. And they all had test results over 90,000 psi, which put them in the
OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category for gasoline engines.
10W30 Lucas Racing Only, full synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
phos = 3489 ppm
moly = 1764 ppm

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

10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phos = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phos = 1112 ppm
moly = 162 ppm

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

10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil, full synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
moly = 52 ppm
10W30 Quaker State Defy, API SL (semi-synthetic) = 90,226 psi
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm
moly = 99 ppm
SUMMARY
Thermal Breakdown BEGINS SOONER with Diesel oil, than with gas engine oils,
which is not desirable for High Performance gas engine usage. And as you can see by
looking at this short list of high zinc gas engine oils, or by looking at the complete
ranking list below, there are many, many gas engine oils available that are FAR
SUPERIOR to the best Diesel oils in terms of wear protection. Therefore, using Diesel
oils in high performance gas engines is NOT the best choice, if you want superior wear
protection with plenty of margin of safety (extra reserve wear protection above what the
engine typically needs).
For those who have used Diesel oil in High Performance gas engines for years without
issue, you were able to do that only because the wear protection required by the engines,
never happened to exceed the oils capability. But, you were clearly running a MUCH
LOWER margin of safety than you would have been, if youd used a much more
capable gas engine oil instead. So, if youve been using Diesel oil in High Performance
gas engines, you may want to rethink what youve been doing and consider upgrading to
one of the far better gas engine oils.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that the end user does NOT know more about motor oil than the Oil
Companies Chemical Engineers and Chemists. So, the BEST choice is to use only
quality gas engine oil in High Performance gas engines. These oils offer MUCH
HIGHER wear protection capability and can withstand somewhat higher temperatures
before the onset of Thermal Breakdown. Leave the less capable Diesel oils for use only
in Diesel engines, where they are meant to be used.

540 RAT
.
==================
.
==================
.
13.DO COMPARABLE ZINC LEVELS PROVIDE COMPARABLE WEAR
PROTECTION?
Some folks have a hard time accepting certain data that has come out of the motor oil
wear testing that Ive been performing. The result that is the hardest for them to
accept is the outcome showing that an oil with a high level of zinc, will not
automatically provide excellent wear protection. That runs counter to everything theyve
always been told over the years.
The data Ive provided up to now has always included low zinc modern API certified
oils along with traditional high zinc High Performance and Racing oils. But having so
many oils of different types of oil in the same test, might be a bit overwhelming or
confusing. So, here Ive selected only 13 oils that all have between 1100 and 1800 ppm
zinc. That way the comparison is just apples to apples. Now zinc levels vs wear
protection can easily be compared straight across.
The excellent performance of many of these high zinc oils, shows that my testing
equipment and test procedure do in fact, allow high zinc oils to perform as well as they
are capable of performing.
Wear protection categories are:
Ive also included detergent levels for reference as well.

All the oils below are full synthetic unless otherwise specified.
The following group of 13 oils are ranked according to their load carrying capacity/film
strength, or in other words, their wear protection performance, at 230*F. The higher
the psi number, the better the wear protection. The tests were repeated multiple times
for each oil, and then those results were averaged to arrive at the final psi numbers
shown below. And every single oil was tested EXACTLY THE SAME.
1. 10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
total detergent = 1618 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.0
NOTE: Due to its very low TBN value, this oil is only suitable for short term racing use,
and is not suitable for street use.
2. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
(.3% below no.1)
zinc = 1472 ppm

3. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
(2.6% below no.1)
zinc = 1180 ppm

4. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil = 95,360 psi
(8.2% below no.1)
zinc = 1431 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio =2.0

5. 10W30 Joe Gibbs HR4 Hotrod Oil = 86,270 psi
(16.9% below no.1)
zinc = 1247 ppm

6. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) = 74,860 psi
(27.9% below no.1)
zinc = 1421 ppm

7. 15W40 Farm Rated Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ
(conventional) = 73,176 psi
(29.5% below no.1)
zinc = 1325ppm

(31.3% below no.1)
zinc = 1621 ppm

(31.4% below no.1)
zinc = 1557 ppm

10. 15W50 Mobil 1, API SN = 70,235 psi
(32.4% below no.1)
zinc = 1133 ppm

11. 10W30 Royal Purple HPS (High Performance Street) = 66,211 psi
(36.2% below no.1)
zinc = 1774 ppm

12. 10W40 Valvoline 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil conventional, API SJ = 65,553 psi
(36.9% below no.1)
zinc = 1154 ppm

13. Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil conventional = 62,931 psi
(39.4% below no.1)
zinc = 1170 ppm
SUMMARY:
As you can see, the number one oil above, the 10W30 Valvoline NSL Conventional
Racing Oil, has 1669 ppm zinc and 103,846 psi load carrying capacity/film strength.
But, the number 11 oil, the 10W30 Royal Purple HPS (High Performance Street), has
1774 ppm zinc, but ONLY 66,211 psi load carrying capacity/film strength, which is a
WHOPPING 36.2% below the number one Valvoline.
On top of that, the number one Valvoline is conventional dino oil, while the Royal
Purple is synthetic. So, many people might not expect conventional oil to perform so
well, since synthetic oil gets all the hype. Conventional oil is still quite good and does
not get the respect it deserves. Its sort of like the fact that Chevys late model high
performance push rod engines are still quite good, even though most all other modern
vehicles use overhead cam designs and get most of the hype.
If you had only looked at the spec sheet for each of these two oils, youd assume they
were equal in wear protection because their zinc levels were essentially the same. But
nothing could be further from the truth. This is real world test data (not just some
theory), which compared motor oils against each other under the EXACT SAME test
conditions. So, this is a perfect example of the fact, that you cannot simply look at the
zinc value on an oils spec sheet, and assume that you can predict how well it will
provide wear protection. Things are just NOT that simple in the real world.
And for those folks who want to avoid high levels of detergent in their oils, for fear that
an oil with a lot of detergent will not be able to provide adequate wear protection, lets
look at that above as well. The oils ranked 1st and 12th both had low levels of detergent.
And the oils ranked 2nd and 13th both had high or relatively high levels of detergent.
The rest of the oils were a mixed bag of high and low detergent oils. So, that is proof
that detergent levels are a non-issue, and that there are better things to worry about.
You simply cannot believe all the misinformation you come across about motor oil, on
the Internet, on Forums, and elsewhere. The bottom line is that, the only way to really
KNOW how well an oil can provide wear protection, is to perform real world wear
testing at a representative temperature, and see how it performs dynamically, under
load. Its the same kind of reason that we dyno test engines, rather than simply looking
at their build sheets. Wear testing motor oil is the gold standard, just like dyno
testing an engine is the gold standard. Anything else is simply guessing.
As Ive said before, there are no BAD oils here. They all will generally work well
enough in most applications. But, some do clearly provide a higher level of reserve
extra protection capability than others. Of course you can decide for yourself, how
much reserve extra protection capability is good enough for your needs.
540 RAT
.
=========================
.
=========================
.
14.DOES PROLONG ENGINE TREATMENT ACTUALLY WORK?
.
I was asked to test Prolong Engine Treatment motor oil additive, which claims to
increase wear protection and decrease heat and friction, to see if it actually works the
way the makers claim.
Their website says, Unlike other engine treatments on the market, Prolong Engine
Treatment does not contain any solid particles such as PTFE resins, molys, zinc,
copper or graphite. There is simply no other product that works as well as Prolong to
reduce friction and heat in your vehicles engine.
A few things the packaging says:

No Equal In The World
Prolong works in an effective partnership with your motor oil, to give your engine the
ultimate protection against destructive metal to metal contact.
Prolong Engine Treatment works immediately.
.
They call for using their 12 ounce bottle for the initial treatment, and then to use their 8
ounce bottle at the following oil changes. The 12 ounce bottle costs about $20.00 and
the 8 ounce bottle costs around $17.00. Those bottles are intended to treat 4 to 5 quarts
of oil.
So, I tested Prolong Engine Treatment, and here are the results:
5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN, full synthetic, by itself produces a wear protection
capability of 92,569 psi. But, with the addition of the recommended amount of Prolong,
its wear protection capability increased to 136,658 psi, or up 48%. Comparing this
increased value to the earlier API SM version of 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, which by itself
had a wear protection capability of 115,612 psi, the addition of Prolong increased its
capability by 18%. The Prolong added capability of 136,658 psi, is the highest value
Ive ever seen. It is so high that it is completely off my wear protection category chart.
This combination will become my latest number one ranked oil. No one could ever ask
for any oil to provide a higher level of wear protection than this combination provides.
5W30 Castrol GTX conventional, by itself produces a wear protection capability of

95,392 psi. But, with the addition of the recommended amount of Prolong, its wear
protection capability increased to 130,366 psi, or up 37%. This combination will
become my latest number two ranked oil.
5W30 Pennzoil conventional yellow bottle, by itself produces a wear protection
capability of 76,989 psi. But, with the addition of the recommended amount of Prolong,
its wear protection capability increased to 117,028 psi, or up 52%. This combination
will become my latest number three ranked oil.
This Prolong Engine Treatment motor oil additive works amazingly well in all types of
oils, at all ranking levels. It is the REAL DEAL in terms of improving wear protection.
You just have to decide for yourself if it is worth the extra money for your own
particular needs. For most people, it would be more cost effective to simply choose a
highly ranked oil in the first place, and avoid using any additives at all. But, for heavily
loaded race engines, flat tappet engines, and for flat tappet break-in, where the ultimate
in wear protection is desired, it could be worth considering.
is included here for informational purposes only. I do not endorse nor recommend its
use.
And for the record, I have no affiliation what so ever, with any Oil Company or any Oil
Additive Company. I simply post the results that come out of my independent and
unbiased testing.
540 RAT
.
====================
.
====================
.
15.TEST DATA ON THE NEWEST PENNZOILS MADE FROM NATURAL
GAS
Pennzoil has introduced a new line of motor oil made from natural gas. I thought it
would be interesting to see how they perform in terms of wear protection capability,
which is by far the most important job a motor oil performs, as well as how they
compare to previous Pennzoils. I purchased the new 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra Platinum
and the new 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum for testing.
Wear protection reference categories are:
.
The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.
5W30 Pennzoil Ultra Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas,
API SN = 99,039 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a dark gray bottle with a blue vertical
stripe on the label. This oil now combines the names Ultra and Platinum, where these
names previously identified different oils. As you can see, this oil is well into the
OUTSTANDING wear protection category.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
5W3 Pennzoil Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN =
87,241 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a silver bottle with a blue vertical stripe
on the label. As you can see, this oil is near the top of the GOOD wear protection
category.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
*******
Heres how they compare to the previous version of these API SN oils that were NOT
made from natural gas.
5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN synthetic = 92,569 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas. This older
oils psi value is about 6.5% lower than the new natural gas version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The older API SM version of this oil, produced a wear protection capability value of
115,612 psi.
5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas. This older
oils psi value is about 14.5% higher than the new natural gas version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
.
=======================
.
=======================
.
16. HIGH TEMP MOTOR OIL WEAR TESTING MYTH VS REALITY
.
Ive re-tested a dozen of those oils at a higher temperature to get a better idea of how
various oil types perform over a wider range of temperatures. The oils chosen this time
consist of:
*** 10 different brands
*** 6 low zinc (below 1,000 ppm) oils
*** 6 high zinc (above 1,000 ppm) oils
*** Viscosities ranging from 5W20 to 20W50
*** 8 full synthetic oils
*** 3 conventional dino oils
*** 1 semi-synthetic oil
*** 6 Racing/High Performance oils
*** 6 Modern API certified oils
*** 6 Low detergent (less than 2.0 detergent/zinc ratio) oils
*** 6 High detergent (2.0 or higher detergent/zinc ratio) oils
Here are those 12 oils, ranked by their test result capabilities at 230*F:
1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM (synthetic)
115,612 psi load carrying capacity

2. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only (synthetic)
106,505 psi load carrying capacity (8% below no. 1)

3. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN (synthetic)

4. 5W50 Motorcraft, API SN (synthetic)

5. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil silver bottle (conventional)

6. 5W20 Castrol Edge w/Titanium, API SN (synthetic)

7. 20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN (conventional)

8. 10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil (synthetic)


10. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil (synthetic)

11. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (synthetic)

12. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 (semi-synthetic)
Of these 12 oils, the top 10 were in the over 90,000 psi OUTSTANDING
PROTECTION CATEGORY. And the last 2 were in the 60,000 to 75,000 psi
MODEST PROTECTION CATEGORY. Now lets take a look at how things changed
at a higher temperature.
Capability ranking at 275*F:
1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM = 97,955 psi (dropped 15% from its 230* value)
2. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN = 96,323 psi (dropped 9% from its 230* value)
(2% below no. 1 here at 275*)

3. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only = 95,996 psi (dropped 10% from its 230* value)

4. 5W50 Motorcraft, API SN = 92,545 psi (dropped 11% from its 230* value)

5. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil = 91,351 psi (dropped ONLY 4% from its 230* value)

6. 20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN = 85,815 psi (dropped 11% from its 230* value)

7. 5W20 Castrol Edge w/Titanium, API SN = 84,584 psi (dropped 15% from its 230*
value)

8. 10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil = 80,957 psi (dropped 15% from its
230* value)

9. 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN = 80,957 psi (dropped 15% from its 230* value)
NOTE: This is not a typo here, number 8 and 9 here just happened to have the same size
wear scar, thus the same psi value.
10. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil, silver bottle = 75,116 psi (dropped 27% from its
230* value)

11. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 = 68,768 psi (dropped ONLY 4% from its 230*
value)

12. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR = 66,664 psi (dropped 11% from its 230* value)

As expected, the capability psi values dropped as the oils got hotter and thinner. But for
most of the oils, the drop was not enormous. And the average psi drop for the whole
group of 12 oils, was only about 12% from their 230* values.
You can see, there was some shuffling of the ranking order, but the original top 10, are
still in the top 10. And there was no indication of the presence of slow burn zinc
(requires more heat and load to become effective) that may have helped the low
performing high zinc oils, do better at higher temps.
But, since engines oil wont typically be running at just 230*F or at just 275*F, it makes
the most sense to average the values from the relatively cool low temp and the relatively
hot high temp, to arrive at values in the middle. This will provide a more real world
reference overall.
The average capability ranking from 230*F and 275*F combined:
1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM (synthetic)
106,784 psi load carrying capacity
zinc = 806 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 4.2, the higher this number, the higher the proportion of
detergent, which can have the potential to try and clean away zinc
2. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only (synthetic)
NOT SUITABLE FOR STREET USE
zinc = 2642 ppm

3. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN (synthetic)
zinc = 801 ppm

4. 5W50 Motorcraft, API SN (synthetic)
zinc = 606 ppm

5. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil (synthetic)
zinc = 1431 ppm

6. 5W20 Castrol Edge w/Titanium, API SN (synthetic)
zinc = 1042 ppm

zinc = 610 ppm

8. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil silver bottle (conventional)
zinc = 1472 ppm

9. 10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil (synthetic)
NOT SUITABLE FOR STREET USE
zinc = 743 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = .8

zinc = 830 ppm

11. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (synthetic)
zinc = 1421 ppm

12. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 (semi-synthetic)
zinc = 1621 ppm
detergent ppm/zinc ppm ratio = 1.8 (only 43% of the detergent concentration of no. 1)
Looking at these 230*F and 275*F combined average values, you can see the
following:
*** Modern API certified oils ranked from number 1 to number 10
*** Racing/High Performance oils ranked from number 2 to number 12
*** High detergent oils ranked from number 1 to number 11
*** Low detergent oils ranked from number 2 to number 12
*** Synthetic oils ranked from number 1 to number 11
*** Conventional dino oils ranked from number 7 to number 10
*** Semi-synthetic oil ranked number 12
*** 20 wt type oil ranked number 6
*** 30 wt type oils ranked from number 1 to number 12
*** 50 wt type oils ranked from number 4 to number 7

So, its quite clear by looking at these results, that high zinc levels, high detergent levels,
and heavy viscosities do NOT play any particular roll in how well a motor oil does or
does not provide wear protection. The only thing that matters is the base oil and its
additive package as a whole. Looking at zinc levels, detergent levels, and viscosities
on an oils spec sheet, will NOT help you choose a motor oil that provides the best wear
protection. If that is all you go by, you will be kidding yourself about how good any
particular oil is.
And keep in mind that the oil industry is fully aware that there is alternate chemistry
available besides zinc/phos, which can be used for extreme pressure wear protection,
that is equal to or better than zinc/phos. And that alternate chemistry is just what they
use to reduce the zinc/phos levels in modern API certified oils. So, you do NOT need to
have high levels of zinc/phos in order to have outstanding wear protection, no matter
how loud someone screams that you do. Because they simply DO NOT know what they
are talking about, and are only repeating that same old incorrect wives tale. That high
zinc thinking is only a MYTH repeated a million times until everyone just thinks its
true. But, that MYTH has been BUSTED by real world dynamic wear testing under
load.
In spite of what many Racers, Hotrodders and Gearheads have been lead to believe about
zinc levels, only dynamic wear testing under load can provide the necessary data to
help you choose a motor oil that will truly provide the best wear protection. Its the
same type of idea where we dyno test engines to see how they truly perform, rather than
just looking at their spec sheets.
SYNTHETIC VS CONVENTIONAL OILS

Some of the most commonly claimed benefits of synthetics are:
.
1. Synthetics provide a higher level of wear protection.

.
2. Synthetics can withstand higher temperatures before thermal breakdown begins.

.
3. Synthetics provide superior flow under extremely cold conditions.

.
So, lets see how the real world testing above, supports those claims. The synthetics
above did show some advantage regarding wear protection, but NOT by a large amount.
The highest ranked conventional oil ranked 7th out of 12, but was only 15% below the
highest ranked synthetic oil. And this conventional oil ranked higher than other
synthetic and semi-synthetic oils.
This shows that you cannot automatically assume that a synthetic oil will provide the
best wear protection just because it is synthetic. Wear protection depends on the oil and
its additive package as a whole. And its the additive package that contains the
extreme pressure protection components, not the oil itself. And again, only dynamic
wear testing under load can provide the data to help you choose an oil that provides the
best wear protection.
THERMAL BREAKDOWN
I also heated the oils and observed the temperature at which they started to
vaporize/smoke, which indicates the onset of thermal breakdown. Thermal breakdown
is the point at which the composition of the oil begins to change due to the temperature
its exposed to.
The official test for this is called the NOACK Volatility Test. In this test, the oil is
heated to 302* F for one hour. The lighter oil fractions will vaporize, leaving thicker
and heavier oil, contributing to poor circulation, reduced fuel economy, increased oil
consumption, increased wear and increased emissions. The test reports results in the
percentage, by weight, lost due to volatilization. Before July 1, 2001, 5W-30 motor
oil in the United States could lose up to 22 percent of its weight and still be regarded as
passable. Now, with GF-4, the maximum NOACK volatility for API licensing is 15
percent. European standards limit high quality oils to a maximum of 13 percent loss.
Here are the approximate observed temperatures at which the various oils started to
vaporize/smoke, which indicated the onset of thermal breakdown:
5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM = 280*
5W30 Mobil 1, API SN = 265*
10W30 Lucas Racing Only = 290*
5W50 Motorcraft, API SN = 275*
10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil = 300*, the BEST in this test
20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN = 275*

5W20 Castrol Edge w/Titanium, API SN = 280*
10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil = 280*
5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN = 280*
10W30 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil, silver bottle = 260*, the WORST in this test
0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 = 280*
5W30 Royal Purple XPR = 285*
Here are the averages for the onset of thermal breakdown with these 12 oils:
Full synthetic oils = 282*
Semi-synthetic oil = 280*
Conventional dino oils = 272*
These observations are perfectly consistent with the NOACK Volatility Test that is
performed at 302*F. Oils have to be vaporizing/smoking by 300* in order to perform
this official test. For the oils tested above, certain specific oils did show a significant
difference, such as the synthetic Amsoil Z-Rod oil which had a 40* advantage over the
conventional Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil.
But, as for overall averages, there was only a 10* difference between synthetic and
conventional oils. So, the real world observation here does NOT support common
internet oil info claims about synthetic oils having an unbelievably high temperature
capability compared to conventional oil.
Dont believe everything you read on the internet about motor oil. Because there is a lot
of misinformation floating around, that has often been repeated over and over without
any proof to back it up. Most sources never ever do any independent testing at all, they
just repeat what others have already written. And it doesnt matter how many times,
different sources repeat the same wrong information, it will never magically become
true.
As mentioned above, performing real world dynamic wear testing under load is the
only way to determine the true story about which oils actually do provide the best wear
protection. And this is precisely why I decided to perform my own testing. That way I
could see for myself what is real and what is not.
The above info also makes a good case for running an effective oil cooler setup, if one is
needed to keep the oil safely below the threshold of thermal breakdown. But you may
also need an oil cooler thermostat as part of that type of setup as well, so that the oil
doesnt end up too cool. You should keep oil temps above 212*F to keep the normal
engine condensation quickly boiled off, rather than just slowly evaporated off. You
dont want to allow slowly evaporating water to have the chance to mix in with the oil
and dilute it. Oil can only be thinned out by becoming diluted with coolant/water or
fuel. And oil can only get thicker by getting overheated and vaporizing its lighter
components. So, an ideal sump temperature range for most motor oils in general, would
be between 215*F and 250*F. You get the idea, not too cold, not too hot, just right.
I did not test the cold flow capability of synthetic oils here. So, that claims validity
remains to be seen. But I did perform one last test here, and that was testing at 325*F, to
see what wear protection capability still exists during extreme heating conditions. I
selected the highest ranked low zinc oil, 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM and the highest
ranked high zinc oil, 10W30 Lucas Racing Only. Even though they were both
vaporizing/smoking a lot at this temperature, here are the results at 325*F:
1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM
98,329 psi load carrying capacity (essentially no change from its 275* value)
2. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only
97,561 psi load carrying capacity (essentially no change from its 275* value)
As you can see, their load carrying capacity leveled off and stayed approximately the
same between 275* and 325*. So, it is comforting to know that you dont run into
dangerously low wear protection if and when you end up with overheated oil at some
point. But of course the oil will have already run into thermal breakdown and should be
changed as soon as possible.
At the end of the day, there are many outstanding motor oils available. And now you
have even more oil performance data to consider. So, making an educated choice to suit
your needs should not be too difficult.
.
540 RAT
================================
================================
.
17. DO HTHS (High-Temperature/High-Shear) VALUES PROVIDE ANY
USEFUL INFORMATION ABOUT WEAR PROTECTION CAPABILITY?
The Motor Oil Wear Protection testing I perform, provides valuable information on how
capable various motor oilsare atproviding wear protection.
.
But, HTHS (High-Temperature/High-Shear) test data only provides information on how

capable various motor oils are at maintaining their viscosity under high heat and high
stress conditions. But, that HTHS viscosity data DOES NOT provide any information at
all about an oils wear protection capability. Because a motor oils viscosity DOES
NOT determine its wear protection capability. A lot of people are completely mistaken
when they believe viscosity determines an oils wear protection capability. On some
Forums, people discuss HTHS values and how they indicate an oils wear protection
capability. But, that whole line of thinking is completely FALSE.
.
Here are some FACTS that came directly out of the Engineering tests I perform on
motor oil.
20 wt oils rank between number 22 and 140
So, as you can see, oil viscosity itself plays no particular role in an oils wear protection
capability. An oils wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its
additive package as a whole, with the primary emphasis on the additive package,
which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, which has nothing to do
with viscosity.
.
Any HTHS values used as a comparison for wear protection, DO NOT reliably tell you
anything. The extreme pressure anti-wear components from the additive package are
what really determine wear protection, NOT those HTHS values. People often do not
understand this, which is why they sometimes get the wrong idea about HTHS values.
.
The oils I have ranked, were all tested at a representative 230*F operating temperature.
But, I have also tested various motor oils at 275*F as well as 325*F. What I found was
that going from 230*F to 275*F, the wear protection capability of the oils tested,
dropped by only about 12% on average. I also found that going from 275*F to 325*F,
their wear protection capability leveled off and stayed about the same. I also found that
even at these elevated temperatures, there was no significant change in ranking order.
And this proves that my normal test data which comes from 230*F, is valid even at
much higher temperatures.
.
I also tested a number of used oils with 5,000 miles on them. And found that there was
no loss of wear protection capability.
At the end of the day, the most important thing a motor oil does, is protect an engine
against wear. Everything else it does, comes AFTER that. I dont place a lot of
importance on HTHS data, because my film strength/load carrying capability values are
really the only data that provides useful information regarding wear protection
capability.
540 RAT
.
=================================
.
.
=================================
.
18. ENGINEERING TEST DATA ON HIGH MILEAGE MOTOR OILS
.
Before we get into motor oil tech, lets briefly touch on a little background info. In
addition to being a lifelong Gear Head, Mechanic, Hotrodder, Drag Racer, and Engine
Builder, Im also a working Professional Degreed Mechanical Engineer, as well as a
U.S. Patent holder. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. A
Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was
formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical
components under load.
It should also be noted, that I do not sell motor oil, nor do I work for any Motor Oil
Company. I have no vested interest in what motor oil people choose to buy. I only share
my Motor Oil Engineering Test Data for free, as a courtesy for other interested parties,
so they too can benefit from the knowledge that was never available until now. People
can embrace my data and make good use of it, or they can ignore it and continue to
make uninformed motor oil choices, which will result in them not always having the
wear protection they think they have. And having less wear protection than they think
they have, has often resulted in wiped lobes in flat tappet engines.
The independent and unbiased Engineering testing I perform at a REPRESENTATIVE
OPERATIONAL TEMPERATURE, to establish motor oil wear protection capability, is
a dynamic friction test under load, similar to how an engine dyno test is a dynamic
HP/Torque test under load. Both tests show how their subjects truly perform in the real
world, no matter what brand names are involved, no matter what outrageous claims may
have been made, and no matter what their spec sheets may say.
I always check and adjust if needed, the calibration of my test equipment each time I test
a different oil, to keep the results accurate. I also perform multiple tests on each oil, then
average those values to arrive at the most accurate and representative value that I post
for comparison. The results, good or bad, simply are what they are, and are determined
by the complete chemical makeup of each oil tested, which is just what your engine sees
after you pour it in.
My Motor Oil Wear Protection Ranking List of over 150 different oils, is proven by
the Physics and Chemistry involved, and it EXACTLY matches real world Track
Street experience (test data validation doesnt get any better than this). You can see the
details on all that, by going to the Oil Test Data Blog link below.
It is not a matter of agreeing with my data or not agreeing with it, because the data used
to create my Wear Protection Ranking List is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my
theory. The data, as mentioned above, is the result of the Physics and Chemistry
involved in the testing. I am only the messenger. The Science is what tells us how these
oils perform. And no sensible person would try to argue against Physics and Chemistry.
Science is absolute whether people like it or not, and emotion cannot change it.
The fact is, motor oil wear protection capability is determined by the base oil and its
additive package as a whole, with the emphasis on the synergistic effects of the base
oil and entire additive package, which is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear
components, and NOT merely by how much zinc is present. The use of zinc as the
primary extreme pressure anti-wear component is outdated technology. Modern extreme
pressure anti-wear components are equal to or better than zinc, which is why many
modern low zinc oils outperform many traditional high zinc oils. Engineering tests have
proven over and over again, that it is completely worthless to simply look at the zinc
level of a particular motor oil to try to determine how well it provides wear protection.
So, think long and hard before believing anything the naysayers say when they try to
discredit my Motor Oil Engineering Test Data. There are always some who try, but fail
in their attempt. They are not actually arguing with me, even if they think they are. They
are actually arguing against the Science of Physics and Chemistry. Who do you think
will win that battle? And ask them how they figure they know more than what the
Science of Physics and Chemistry proves. Ask them what their qualifications are. Ask
them what testing they have ever done.
does not determine the Engineering results of how good any particular oil is. As
mentioned above, and it bears repeating, factual Engineering tests have proven over and
over again that zinc levels alone DO NOT determine an oils wear protection capability.
The naysayers cannot factually back-up anything they say. They think they are motor oil
experts simply because they have done a bunch of Internet reading. They will
sometimes make a big deal about what is in the base oil. They will sometimes provide
links to lame Internet articles, which are often just a lab test of a single individual zinc
component, showing what it did in that particular lab test. But, that is not any actual
motor oil that you buy and pour into your engine. It may be somewhat interesting to
read, but that type of test does not does not take into account the countless formula
variations and synergistic effects found in the actual motor oils that are available on the
market. Therefore, you are only looking at a single data point of a test that is not even
what will end up in your engine. Or in other words, worthless information that many
zinc lovers falsely believe, is that last word on motor oil. That is NOT how Engineering
works. And lot of their lame Internet articles are nothing more than one author copying
from the same worthless source material as other authors.
And if that isnt bad enough, some information they throw out there as Gospel is only
advertising hype from a motor oils bottle or website. Of course it is no secret that
Motor Oil Companies are among the worst for false advertising. The absolute worst
motor oils on the market, and the absolute best motor oils on the market, make the same
claims about how wonderful they are. So, the claims made on motor oil bottles and
websites would only be taken as truthful, by gullible people who are not Technically
savvy.
These zinc lover critics may mean well, but they really DO NOT know what they are
talking about. Motor Oil Companies will say absolutely anything to sell their products.
When it comes to motor oil, there is no such thing as truth in advertising. And that is
why you never see any advertising data from a given Motor Oil Company about how its
modern low zinc oils compare to its traditional high zinc oils. That is because it is
simply not true that all high zinc oils are better than all low zinc oils. The truth is, some
high zinc oils are quite good, while other high zinc oils are quite poor. And you cannot
tell the difference by looking only their zinc quantities.
Then these naysayers will also sometimes use the oil recommendations from Cam
Companies as support for their position on what oil to use. Problem is, just because
Cam Companies sell cams, does not mean they know the first thing about motor oil.
They are simply staffed by people who are brainwashed to believe that any high zinc oil
will provide all the wear protection necessary for flat tappet cams. But, the proof that
they are clueless about motor oil, is the fact that even the leading Cam Companies still
have flat tappet lobes get wiped, when people use the oils they recommend. And those
oils are typically the oils that have tested very poorly in my Motor Oil Engineering
Wear Protection Testing. On top of that, Cam Companies typically do not employ
Degreed Mechanical Engineers. So, it comes as no surprise that they supply bad
information as to what oils to use.
The people who recommend poor performing motor oils, believe if they havent lost a
lobe while using a certain oil, that it must be great oil. But, they just dont know, what
they dont know. That only means the oil they used provided enough protection for
the particular application that didnt fail. But, that does not tell them anything about
how much extra protection they had beyond that. So, their opinion of that oil is not a
good technical evaluation of its capability. That would be like them telling you that an
engine making 750 HP, is good as long as it has rods in it that can withstand 751 HP.
Yeah, it might not throw a rod, or maybe it will. But, no technically savvy person would
want to run a margin of safety that close.
Its the same idea with the oil you choose to run. Dont run an oil with a margin of safety
that close. My Motor Oil Engineering Test Data, allows us see how different oils truly
compare to each other, so we can run a substantial margin of safety to provide the best
possible wear protection for our engines. You have to spend money buying oil anyway,
so why not buy excellent oil while you are at it? So, before you consider following the
bad advice others give about the oil they only think is good, read the real world facts
about motor oil, at the link provided at the end of this posting, then decide for yourself
who is providing factual motor oil information that you can actually use to your
advantage.
The whole idea of simply needing a high zinc level for sufficient wear protection, is only
an old wives tale myth that has been busted. Modern extreme pressure anti-wear
additives are equal to or better than zinc. Relying only on zinc as the primary anti-wear
component, is outdated technology. Wiped flat tappet lobes continue to happen over and
over again, when people use high zinc oils that produce poor results in my testing. Its
time to take notice of that.
People who want the facts about which motor oils are good and which are not so good,
want to see unbiased and independent test data. And that is exactly what my motor oil
film strength/load carrying capability data provides. I back-up everything I say with that
hard Engineering test data that exactly matches real world experience. It matches real
world experience because my test data is the real deal, which accurately predicts what
we can expect from the oils we buy. I test the actual motor oils that we buy and pour
into our engines. So, my test data comes entirely from real on-the-market motor oils,
which is what truly matters.
To provide your engine with the best possible wear protection, as well as to prevent
wiped flat tappet wiped lobes, I recommend that you select a highly ranked oil (Id
suggest an oil with over 90,000 psi capability for High Performance Street/Strip flat
tappet engines) from my Wear Protection Ranking List, no matter how much zinc it has.
That same oil, assuming it is not a short term only Racing Oil, can be used for both
break-in and after break-in. Also, do NOT use any aftermarket additives at all, use the
oil just as it comes right out of the bottle.
Using special break-in procedures is only a crutch for poor performing high zinc oils.
And if you select a highly ranked oil from my wear protection ranking list, no matter
how much zinc it has, with no aftermarket additives, you wont even have to perform
any special break-in procedures. Using an oil with a highly ranked film strength/load
carrying capability is that good. I have not had one person who has followed that
recommendation, ever report a wiped lobe again. If you make a wise motor oil choice
based on my test data, rather than the old myth of any high zinc oil is good enough, the
engine you save may be your own.
My Test Data Blog now has over 95,000 views worldwide. Of course simply listing the
number of views by itself, is not intended to indicate validation of the test data
(validation is shown throughout the Blog). But, indicating the number of views does
show that an enormous number of people worldwide recognize the value, understand the
importance, and make use of the motor oil test data FACTS included there, that cannot
be found anywhere else. And as a result, they are posting and sharing links to my Blog,
all over the world. See for yourself. A link is provided at the end of this posting.
*****
Now, on with Test Data on High Mileage Motor Oils.
High Mileage motor oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on
them. And High Mileage oils include Seal Swell chemicals to help reduce oil leakage
in those older engines.
Below is how 5 different High Mileage oils ranked just among themselves, regarding
wear protection capability, after they were tested.
.
The Wear protection reference categories are:
1.5W30 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage, API SN, synthetic blend = 108,045 psi
2.5W30 Pennzoil High Mileage Vehicle, API SN, conventional = 102,402 psi
3.5W30 Castrol GTX High Mileage, API SN, synthetic blend = 91,404 psi
4.10W30 Quaker State Defy High Mileage, API SL semi-synthetic = 90,226 psi
5.5W30 Mobil 1 High Mileage, API SL, synthetic = 88,081 psi
As you can see, these oils all performed very well, even though the top 3 are modern low
zinc API SN oils. And that is even more proof that oilsDO NOT need high zinc levels
to provide excellent wear protection.
To see how these oils rank in my overall Wear Protection Ranking List of over 150
different oils, go to:
Section 1 Motor Oil Wear Protection Ranking List, in this Blog.
.
540 RAT
.
================================
==================================
.
19. ENGINE DYNO HP vs CHASSIS DYNO HP
.
Dont put too much stock in Chassis Dyno data. Heres why:
.
From time to time, folks try to determine what their engine HP is by back calculating
from the Rear Wheel HP data they obtained from a Chassis Dyno. Lets take a look at
what it takes to make sense of that.
.
First we need to look at the 3, count em 3, different correction factors in use.
1. SAE J607 also called SAE STD, which is the classic Hotrod and Racing Engine
correction factor used by most folks on an engine dyno. So, if you plan to compare
Hotrod or Racing Engine dyno figures between various engines across the nation, you
must use this correction factor in order to be on the same page with most everyone else.
It is corrected to 60*F, zero % humidity, and 29.92 hg. This one gives GROSS HP, and
excludes the use of accessories, full exhaust system, full air cleaner, or any emissions
equipment. Since this correction factor has the most favorable correction conditions, it
will of course provide the highest numbers of all the correction factors shown here.
.
2. SAE J1995 also called SAE GROSS, was used by the OEMs through 71. It is
corrected to 77*F, zero % humidity, and 29.234 hg. This one gives GROSS HP, and
excludes the use of accessories, full exhaust system, full air cleaner or any emissions
equipment. The results using this one, are usually somewhere around 20% higher than
SAE NET HP figures.
.
3. SAE J1349 also called SAE NET, has been used by the OEMs since 72. It is also
corrected to 77*F, zero % humidity, and 29.234 hg. But this one gives NET HP, and
DOES include the use of accessories, full exhaust system, full air cleaner, and any
emissions equipment.
.
Since each correction factor will provide different HP results, when it comes to trying to
compare and/or calculate one way or the other, between engine dyno numbers and
chassis dyno numbers, you MUST use the SAME correction factor for both the engine
dyno and the chassis dyno. This will keep things an apples to apples comparison and/or
calculation.
.
If you dont use the same correction factors, you end up with, at best, an apples to
oranges comparison, or at worst, an apples to elephants comparison. Neither one of
these is much good for back calculating engine HP from rear wheel HP.
.
When Engine and Chassis Dyno numbers are compared properly, by using the same
correction factor, the most widely accepted drive train loss figures for non-IRS cars
have typically been around 12 to 15% for stick cars, and around 25 to 30% for
automatics.
.
So, lets look at some real world Engine Dyno vs Chassis Dyno tests, to see how things
typically shake out:
From June 2011 Popular Hotrodding Magazine
70 Chevy Nova
555ci BBC
675 HP from Engine Dyno using SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor
9 rearend (not IRS)
Powerglide automatic
1. On a Dyno Dynamics Eddy Current chassis dyno with 2 smallish 12 diameter rollers,
using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor. This is an apples to oranges
comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 487, for a
28% drive train loss. The loss was so high here, not only because of the incompatible
correction factors, but also because under load, the 2 smallish dyno rollers caused
MAJOR out of shape, HP robbing, tire distortion.
2. On a Dynojet Inertia chassis dyno with 1 large 24 diameter roller, using SAE
J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to elephants comparison because of
REALLY incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 564, for a 16% drive
train loss. The larger dyno roller did not cause any HP robbing tire distortion here.
The results between these two chassis dynos varied by a whopping 77 Rear wheel HP,
or 12%. This leaves you with absolutely no chance of back calculating engine HP with
any degree of accuracy. Even if you threw out number 1 with all the tire distortion, and
looked only at number 2, you still couldnt accurately back calculate engine HP.
Because that 16% loss is considered to be more in line with stick drive train losses,
when compatible correction factors are used, and NOT automatic drive train losses
when significantly incompatible correction factors are used.
The results here just leave you scratching your head. So, you cant accurately back
calculate engine HP and you cant even feel confident about how much HP you are
actually putting to the ground either. This certainly questions the value of using a
Chassis dyno at all.
From February 2011 Super Chevy Magazine
72 Corvette
383ci SBC
426 HP from Engine Dyno using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor
IRS rear end
4 speed stick
On Super Chevy Magazines brand new Dynojet inertia chassis dyno, and using the SAE
J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of

incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 283, for a whopping 34% drive
train loss.
.
70 Chevelle LS6
454ci BBC
450 HP from factory Engine Dyno using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor
Solid rear end (no IRS)
TH400 automatic
train loss.
.
69 L72 Yenko Camaro
427ci BBC
425 HP from factory Engine Dyno using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor
Stick tranny
train loss.
.
57 Chevy BelAir
283ci SBC
245 HP dual quad, from factory Engine Dyno using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction
factor
Powerglide automatic
train loss.
The drive train losses for this group of 4 cars ranged from 32% to 37%, and were high
due to incompatible correction factors. On top of that, there was no clear distinction at
all between stick cars, automatic cars, and IRS cars, even though stick cars typically
only have about half as much drive train loss as automatic cars. So, none of these
figures are worth much either, in terms of accuracy or usefulness.
From March 2011 Hotrod Magazine
2011 Shelby GT500 Super Snake Mustang
5.4L Supercharged V-8
750 HP from Engine Dyno using SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor
solid rearend (not IRS)
6 speed stick
1. On a Dynojet Inertia chassis dyno using SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor. Rear
wheel HP = 654, for a 13% drive train loss. Being that this is an apples to apples
comparison because of the same correction factors being used, it makes sense to see a
13% drive train loss, which is in the range of what would be expected for a non-IRS
stick car.
2. On a SECOND Dynojet Inertia chassis dyno at another shop, which also used the
SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor. Rear wheel HP = 652, for a 13% drive train loss.
Being that this is an apples to apples comparison because of the same correction factors
being used, again it makes sense to see a 13% drive train loss, which is in the range of
what would be expected for a non-IRS stick car.
3. On a Superflow Auto Dyn eddy current chassis dyno using SAE J607/SAE STD
correction factor. Rear wheel HP = 630, for a 16% drive train loss. Being that this is an
apples to apples comparison because of the same correction factors being used, it still
makes sense to see a 16% drive train loss, which is just on the outer edge of the range of
what would be expected for a non-IRS stick car.
4. On a Mustang brand eddy current chassis dyno using SAE J1349/SAE NET
correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible
correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 568, for a 24% drive train loss. These numbers
are too far off to be of any use for comparison or for even determining how much HP is
put to the ground.
5. On a Dyna Pack hydraulic type chassis dyno that bolts directly to the hubs, and using
SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison
because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 585, for a 22% drive
train loss. These numbers are too far off to be of any use for comparison or for even
determining how much HP is put to the ground.
Overall, these 5 chassis dynos ranged a whopping 86 RWHP, or 11% on the SAME
car, with the exact SAME setup. Good luck trying to ever back calculate engine HP
from these numbers, or even trying to determine how much HP is actually delivered to
the ground.
However, if you only look at the 3 dynos above that used the same correction factor as
the engine dyno, youll see that they produced reasonable numbers that actually are
usable. They ranged only 24 HP or 3%, which is about as good as you are ever going to
get. And this backs up the statement that you MUST use the SAME correction factor for
both the engine dyno and the chassis dyno.
Also, new cars since 72 have been rated in SAE NET engine HP. So, you can fairly
reasonably use a chassis dyno that uses the same SAE NET HP correction factor for
comparison there. But even that is a little iffy because the OEMs often underrate their
HP levels, so that introduces more error back into any comparison/back calculation.
If you dont use the same correction factors for comparison, then all chassis dynos are
really good for is to compare back to back changes you make while on that dyno. That
way you are only looking at the differences, and not caring about what the absolutes
truly are. If used in this manner, any random chassis dyno can be a useful tool for
modifications (though its wise to make a few back to back pulls with no changes to see
if the dyno is repeatable, because some are not).
And if you are using mismatched correction factors for comparison, dont even bother
trying to back calculate your engine HP, because you wont get valid results. In addition
to that, with all the other variables between dynos (due to different makes and models,
strap tension, tire pressure, tire rubber compound, dyno cooling fan airflow, etc, etc),
dont put much stock in the amount of HP they claim you are putting to the ground
either, since the numbers will be all over the place
So, at the end of the day, you have to decide for yourself if you think a Chassis Dyno
session is even worth the time, cost and effort.
.
540 RAT
.
.
================================
.
.
==================================
.
.
20. STD VOLUME OIL PUMPS VS HIGH VOLUME OIL PUMPS IS THERE
REALLY A HP DIFFERENCE?
.
When it comes to discussing/debating the topic of std volume oil pumps vs high
volume oil pumps, we need something more than just opinion, emotion and
speculation. We need actual real world comparison data. So, consider the following:
Awhile back, Car Craft Magazine used a 372ci SBC to do an oil pump volume
comparison test. So, we can look at that actual real world test data to see how things
stacked up. Here are the results using conventional petroleum 30 wt for each test:
Oil Pump.Peak HPAve. HPAve. press.
Std volume/std pressure.48539250 psi
High volume/High pressure481390.66 psi
High volume/std pressure..477.38764 psi
As you can see, surprisingly the std pressure version of the high volume pump made the
worst HP of these three small block pumps. It was down 8hp or down 1.6% for peak
HP, and down 5hp or down 1.3% for Ave HP. It also provided a 14 psi increase in ave
pressure, or a 28% increase in ave pressure.
But the High volume/high pressure pump was down only 4hp or down .8% for peak HP,
and down only 2hp or down only .5% for Ave HP. This one provided a 16 psi increase
in ave pressure, or a 32% increase in ave pressure.
Of course the most important number is the average HP loss, NOT the peak HP loss.
Because peak is only a single data point, while average is across the whole rpm range
being used.
Only the most hardcore racer could ever notice a 2hp or .5% HP loss, using the high
volume/high pressure pump. So, THE USE OF THAT HIGH VOLUME/HIGH
PRESSURE PUMP DID NOT CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF PERFORMANCE,
as is the common belief. And the higher volume pump will provide better low rpm oil
pressure, and allow for switching to much better thinner motor oils. More on that below.
And in the same article, Car Craft also tested different oil viscosities using the High
volume/std pressure oil pump. Here are those results:
OilPeak HPAve. HPAve. pressAve. Flow in GPM
0W10 syn480387567.4
5W20 syn.479386597.2
20W50 syn..477387676.5
30W conventional..475.384676.1
The 0W10 is probably thinner than all but the hardest of hardcore racers would care to
use. And 20W50 is thickish and somewhat similar to the straight 30W.
But 30W conventional petroleum oil was used for the oil pump volume test at the top, so
lets use that as the main reference here for viscosity comparisons. And that leaves the
more reasonable 5W20 synthetic for a quick viscosity comparison.
The 5W20 made 4hp more peak HP or about .8% more peak HP than the 30W. It also
made 2hp more ave HP, or .5% more Ave HP than the 30W. So, HP increases with the
thinner oil is not significant here, but it does offset the slight loss of hp from going to a
high volume pump in the first place. The thinner 5W20 also drops a little oil pressure,
but its still quite reasonable.
So, a larger volume oil pump loses a tad bit of HP and increases the oil pressure, but the
thinner synthetic oil gains a tad bit of HP and decreases the oil pressure. In the end, its
all pretty much a wash. So then whats the point of making these changes at all?
To answer that, we need to look at the average flow in GPM (gallons per minute). The
5W20 flows a whopping 18% more than the straight 30W. So whats the value in that
you ask?
Well, many folks believe that oil pressure = lubrication, but that is simply NOT the
case. Pressure is only a measurement of resistance to flow. But, oil FLOW is
lubrication, and you get more flow with thinner oil as we just saw above. Lubrication is
what is used to separate moving parts, and keep them from making metal to metal
contact, which results in wear/damage. And increased flow also has another very
important advantage. An engines vital internal components are all DIRECTLY OIL
COOLED, but only INDIRECTLY water cooled. And thinner oil will flow more freely,
carrying away more heat, thus providing better cooling for those vital internal
components. And of course that extra cooling is even more important in high
performance engines.
So, going to the trouble of achieving almost an extra 20% in flow, is well worth the
effort. If someone asks why use a high volume pump, the answer is so that you can
maintain reasonable oil pressure with thinner oil. And with thinner oil, you can improve
both lubrication and cooling. So, its all good.
NOTE: To best see those oil temp changes and cooling improvements, you really need to
observe that in a running car on the road or on the track. Because trying to observe this
during brief dyno pulls, will likely result in you not getting a worthwhile picture of the
true potential.
So, here are some comparison numbers for you from an 830 HP road race engine, on the
track:
.
15W50 oil = 80 psi = 265* oil temp
.
5W20 oil = 65 psi = 240* oil temp
.
Here you can see how the thicker oil flowed more slowly through the bearings, thus
getting hotter and driving up bearing temps. If an engine is running hot, use a thinner oil
to increase flow and increase cooling. And running a high volume oil pump allows you
to do that.
For me personally, I run 5W30 in my own 781 HP, 710 ft lb, 540ci BBC Street/Strip
motor, which I intentionally built with .003 clearance on the rods and mains. And with a
Titan gerotor high volume/high pressure oil pump, it has a hot idle oil pressure of
about 30 psi, and a rock steady max oil pressure of 80 psi, which also shows that there is
no sign of aerated oil with this setup. No issues, no problems.
CONCLUSION:
No matter what anyone else tells you, the Ideal Lubrication Setup for most traditional
engines, is a high volume/high pressure oil pump with a thinner multi-viscosity motor
oil such as 5W30.
540 RAT
================================
==================================
21. Points Ignition vs Electronic Ignition
.
Every time I hear about someone having a failure with an aftermarket electronic ignition
system that has been added to a traditional non-computer controlled car, it makes me
wonder why those people are causing their own misery. For those cars, the only
advantage an electronic ignition system has over a points ignition system is reduced
maintenance/tuning, and a rev limiter feature, if a given system even has that feature.
Keep in mind that a rev limiter, if you have one, is intended to only be a safety feature
for the engine to prevent over revving in the case of a missed gear for example. You
should NOT be shifting by bouncing off the rev limiter, you should be shifting by the
tachometers shift light set to your shift point, if you have one of those. And you dont
need an electronic ignition system to have a tachometer shift light. You just need a
tachometer that has one.
The advantages of an electronic ignition system is only a benefit until you have a failure
that occurs without any warning, which is how electronic ignition systems fail. They
work great right up until they suddenly fail without warning. And if this happens when
you are out on the road, there is no roadside tinkering you can do to get it working
again, which leaves you stranded dead in the water. All you can do at that point is call
for a flatbed ride home. But, you dont have to subject yourself to this possibility.
Because the fact is, an electronic ignition system is NOT really going to help most
Sportsman Racers, Hotrodders or Enthusiasts who are running old school traditional
cars.
Guys who perform a lot of engine dyno testing, know that an electronic ignition system
will NOT make even one more HP than a points ignition system. It seems that most
people use electronic ignition systems in old school traditional cars, just because
everybody else is doing it.
However, I dont do things just because everyone else is doing it. So, I built my 540ci
BBC as an old school throw back. And I used a brand new billet Mallory dual point
distributor. That distributor has the best, easiest and largest mechanical advance
adjustability of any distributor Ive come across. Im not afraid of a little bit of
occasional points maintenance/tuning, because making adjustments and tuning, is all
part of the fun of wrenching on Hotrod cars. And for most weekend cars, they have so
little mileage put on them, that even points maintenance/tuning is a fairly rare thing.
And the best thing about a points ignition system is its reliability. Because it wont
experience any weird failures without warning, so it wont leave you stranded along
side the road. If you ignore it long enough without any maintenance/tuning, the worst it
will do is experience a slow degradation of starting and/or running performance. It will
let you know it needs some attention long before it stops working altogether.
But, getting stranded by an electronic ignition system failure has happened to people I
know, to people Ive talked to, and to people Ive just read about, who use MSD and
other aftermarket electronic ignition system brands. It doesnt always happen of course,
but it happens way more often than you might think. In fact, one buddy of mine kept
getting repeatedly stranded in his 500 HP, 69 Corvette Hotrod by his electronic ignition
system. He finally went back to points on my recommendation and has never had a
problem again. So, I run points in my own 540 BBC, because there is no reason not to,
and to avoid that dreaded flatbed ride home.
With an old school points ignition system, my 540 Street/Strip engine made the
following numbers on the engine dyno:
Peak hp = 781 at 6,300 rpm
Peak torque ft lbs = 710 at 4,800 rpm

Ave hp between 4000 and 6700 rpm = 681
Ave torque ft lbs between 4000 and 6700 rpm = 670


On top of all that, the engine starts immediately, and the throttle response is surprisingly
crisp and quick. So, points ignition systems are still far better than most people think.
They work just fine for me, even in the 21st century. And they can work just fine for
you too.
540 RAT
.
===============================
.
===============================
.
.
22. How to choose your own Camshaft

Camshaft selection methodology can vary widely. Some people look through Cam
Company Catalogs and try to follow the general guidelines provided there. Some call
Cam Companies and talk to a representative. Some have software available that they
can plug various cam numbers into, to see how they compare. Some decide based on
their own previous experience. Some with a dyno, will test multiple cams. Some will
test multiple cams at the track over time. Some use whatever their engine builder
recommends. And some just ask their buddies.
.
But, because of all the variables related to selecting an optimum camshaft for any
particular vehicle and its intended purpose, the final cam chosen can be one that many
people do not agree on. People will argue about all the specifications of a camshaft, but
LSA (lobe separation angle) is often the most hotly debated. Some will insist that you
need a wide LSA for the best performance, while others will argue that a narrow LSA
will provide the best performance. But, the fact is, both have proven to provide excellent
performance in various applications.
.
So, where does all this leave the average Gear Head, Sportsman Racer, Hotrodder or
Enthusiast who doesnt have much, if any, cam selection experience, but would still like
to understand how to choose his own cam rather than have someone else choose it for
him? Of course he wants to get it right the first time, because he will typically have to
live his choice.
I have software available, but instead of using it, I find myself working out all the details
manually, because I can more precisely arrive at what I really want. Here is the
methodology I used to selected the cam for my own 540 cubic inch BBC (Big Block
Chevy) Street/Strip Hotrod engine. This methodology is straight forward and can be
used by anyone to select a proper cam for their own needs.
I had decided up front that I wanted a bad boy solid roller for the HP they can produce.
So, that was my starting point.
.
I also knew that I wanted a Hot Street/Strip cam that had an approximate max
operating range up to 7,000 rpm (which is where Id be setting my redline/shift point),
and would also put the peak power in the desired mid-6,000 rpm range. I didnt really
need a higher rpm range because truth be told, it was going to be primarily a Street
Hotrod.
.
The max operating range is determined by the duration. If you look through various
cam catalogs, youll see that for fairly large displacement BBC engines, an .050
duration of around 266/271 or so, will give you that 7,000 rpm max operating range.
And this cam duration also calls for a static CR of about 11 to 1, to support that
duration. So, that also gives you good direction on the static CR to target to work
properly with the cam.
.
Most cams of this duration range already come ground with a lift of around .700
(with 1.7 rockers for a BBC) give or take a bit, depending on the cam company or
particular grind you select. So, the amount of lift available, more or less falls out
automatically for you. You just need to confirm that the amount of lift you get with your
chosen duration, is acceptable with your heads. I would have liked a little more lift to
take full advantage of the airflow capacity of the AFR 335cc CNC heads Id decided to
use. But, to get more lift, Id typically have to choose a cam with more duration, which
would be more duration than I wanted or needed. So, I stayed with the lift of about
.700. I had decided to go with Comp Cams which narrowed things down quite a bit.
And I liked the aggressiveness and the tight lash design (only .016 hot) of their
Extreme Energy line of lobes. The lobes I chose, provide 303*/309* duration at .015,
266*/272* at .050, and 187*/193* at .200.
Look at the difference between the .050 duration and the .200 duration. My .050 to .200
intensity is 79* (from 266*-187* or 272*-193*). The larger the .200 duration, thus the
smaller the .050 to .200 intensity, the larger and more aggressive the lobe. So, if you
compare these to other lobes, youll see that they are fairly aggressive. I was happy with
this selection direction, and was nearly done, with the exception of LSA (lobe
separation angle) still remaining. Comp offered my cam lobes in different LSAs, so I
had to decide what I needed/wanted.
.
Deciding on LSA is what really separates the men from the boys, when it comes to
cam selection. This topic has generated many nasty arguments on the various Hotrod
and Racing Forums over the years. Ill say right up front that LSA is only a byproduct of the chosen overlap, and is NOT the up-front goal. And this is what often
causes discussions to degrade into an argument. The reason I say this is, for example,
you can find a 110* LSA cam in any catalog that is intended for grandmas grocery
getter. You can also find a 110* LSA cam in any catalog that is intended for a
Street/Strip Hotrod. And you can also find 110* LSA in any catalog that is intended for
a dedicated Sportsman Drag car. So, as you can see, setting out to run a 110* LSA cam
as your up-front goal, is of no value what so ever, because it DOES NOT define
anything about a cams operational characteristics, since all three of those totally
different cams, have the same LSA.
.
Because I work out all the details up front, in order to arrive at the best possible end
result, I had to determine the best OVERLAP for my needs, which absolutely defines
a cams operational characteristics. I wanted an overlap value that would make serious
power and torque as well as turn heads at any local cruise-in with an old-school lumpy
sound. So, OVERLAP is the up-front goal, and LSA is only its by-product. Heres what
I used to focus in on the desired overlap:
.
APPROXIMATE SOLID LIFTER ADVERTISED OVERLAP PERFORMANCE
REFERENCE CHART
300ci400ci500+ci.Typical usage
10*.25*. .40*. towing
30*.45*.. .60*..ordinary street
50*.62.5*.. .75*street performance
70*.80*90*..street/strip
85*.92.5*100*..race
95*.105*.115*..Pro race
Heres the CORRECT way to calculate your cams ADVERTISED OVERLAP which is
needed for the chart above:
.
Add your intake and exhaust advertised duration (typically shown as duration at .015
tappet lift. NOTE: duration at .050 tappet lift will NOT give you the correct advertised
duration value)
.
Divide that answer by 4

.
Subtract the lobe separation angle (LSA) from that answer

.
Multiply that answer by 2, and you have the CORRECT advertised overlap to use in
the chart above
.
NOTE: Because of the differences resulting from not having any lash, and the way
hydraulic cam advertised duration is rated, if you want to figure the advertised
overlap for a HYDRAULIC LIFTER cam, so that you can use the chart above,
REDUCE the Hydraulic cams listed ADVERTISED DURATION (typically shown as
duration at .006 tappet lift) by 8*, for both intake and exhaust, then follow the
calculation procedure as shown above.
If you want to get an idea of what a given cam will sound like, you can take a look at this
chart below. Here are some common engine sizes, and the approximate minimum, solid
lifter advertised overlap needed, for that lumpy idle (at around 1,000 rpm) that will turn
heads at the local cruise-in.
.
APPROXIMATE MINIMUM, SOLID LIFTER ADVERTISED OVERLAP LUMPY

IDLE REFERENCE CHART
350ci..77*
383ci..78.5*
400ci..80*
454ci..84*
496ci..87*
540ci..90*
572ci..92*
632ci..96.5*
This chart is for idle speeds in the 950 to 1,000 rpm range. Slower idle speeds, will
sound even lumpier. And LARGER advertised overlap numbers than shown here, will
sound even lumpier as well.
So, as I said above, I wanted to choose an overlap that would make serious power and
torque as well as turn heads at any local cruise-in. And for the Street/Strip performance
category I targeted, 90* advertised overlap was the value in the ADVERTISED
OVERLAP PERFORMANCE REFERENCE CHART above.
Likewise 90* advertised overlap just met the threshold of making a nice lumpy idle in
the LUMPY IDLE REFERENCE CHART. So, now that the required overlap had been
decided on, I just needed to choose a LSA for my cam, that Comp Cams offered, that
would be closest to this overlap value. In the end their cam with the 108* LSA met this
requirement the 90* advertised overlap exactly. You might say that I pretty much came
up with a sweet spot for my intended build. Now my cam selection was complete and
after installing the cam straight up, meaning not advanced or retarded, the engine
performance met or exceeded all my intended goals. So, I was more than pleased with
my cam selection.
Here are some engine dyno values from this 540 ci Street/Strip BBC engine:
Peak hp = 781 at 6,300 rpm
Peak torque ft lbs = 710 at 4,800 rpm


My cam selection methodology is not unusual. Because after I had already

selected/bought/installed my cam, I found that my methodology is essentially identical
to what Comp Cams guru Billy Godbold recommended in a magazine interview. He
said the following:
Choose duration based on desired rpm
Choose lift based on head flow
Choose desired overlap, then let the LSA fall where it may
Its not surprising that he and I would use the same process for cam selection, because
this is how cams/engines work. So, we should be using the same methodology.
You can use the methodology above to make an informed decision about the cam you
select yourself for your own engine, by taking into consideration its displacement,
desired operating rpm range, and the intended usage. This will get you extremely close
to the optimum cam for your needs. To get any closer, youd need to dyno or track test
various very similar cams in order to split hairs to determine which one might be
slightly better.
.
=======
.
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer (A Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to
test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability
between mechanical components under load.)
U.S. Patent Holder (Mechanical device designed for Military Jet Aircraft)
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
Lifelong Gear Head, Mechanic, Hotrodder, Drag Racer, and Engine Builder.
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Loading...
PUBLISHED: June 20, 2013

FILED UNDER: Uncategorized
Search
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

The Manifest Theme.

Motor Oil Test Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motor Oil Test Data

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motor Oil Test Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the author's credentials?

What are the author's credentials?

What methodology did the author use to select the cam for their engine build?

What methodology did the author use to select the cam for their engine build?

MOTOR OIL ENGINEERING TEST DATA | 540 RAT - Tech Facts, NOT Myths

540 RAT TECH FACTS, NOT

MOTOR OIL ENGINEERING TESTDATA

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

equations, charts or graphs. The intended audience includes Automotive Enthusiasts,

Get every new post delivered to

The independent and unbiased Engineering testing I perform at a representative

Some minor text updates were made.

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

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

TYPICAL GEAR HEAD MINDSET vs ENGINEER MINDSET

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

OIL TEST DATA AND RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE ARE IDENTICAL

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

So, my test data ACCURATELY PREDICTED EXACTLY what he experienced during

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company:

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

Of course, many folks, including Enthusiasts, Hotrodders, Racers, Builders, Cam

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

advertising hype from a motor oils bottle or website. As mentioned above, it is no

which is what truly matters.

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

worst case conditions, absolutely no further testing is required in a running engine. If

My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engines internal components. On

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

capability, such as an overheating condition, an oiling condition, a loading condition,

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

* Synthetic oils rank between number 1 and number 157.

* Conventional oils rank between number 2 and number 159.

* Ive also tested a number of synthetic, semi-synthetic and conventional gasoline

* Low zinc oils rank between number 1 and number 124.

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

* 20 wt oils rank between number 24 and 148.

* 30 wt oils rank between number 1 and 159.

* 40 wt oils rank between number 47 and 147.

* 50 wt oils rank between number 16 and 156.

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/[19/11/2015 1:53:45 AM]

Temperature/High-Shear) values provide any useful information about wear protection

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