arghx

iTrader: (3)

can you clarify--What are the ZDDP options for those of us who run the factory OMP injecting oil just like off the showroom floor? if we are running the OMP in stock form should we use the GM or ZDDPlus bottled additive? Or should we switch to a different type of oil, or what?

http://www.castrol.com/castrol/gener...tentId=6003410

I've been running Castrol GTX 20W-50 . On the castrol site they do not say that the 20W-50 is ILSAC GF-4, but they do mention it for the lighter weight oils. I wonder how much ZDDP this oil actually has in it. This site http://www.ttalk.info/Zddp.htm says that the Castrol GTX 20W-50 seems to be better for ZDDP than a lot of other oils, but I guess I'll have to take their word for it.

Punished

Awesome information. Will be running this in all cars from now on.

arghx

iTrader: (3)

ZDDP target ratio calculator spreadsheet thingie:

http://www.westfalia.gomez-perales.c...ments/ZDDP.xls

now maybe the formulation has changed, but the spreadsheet claims that Castrol GTX 20W-50 is .09% Zinc. It lets you put in your target % zinc level and the amount of oil in the pan, and then it tells you how much ZDDPlus you will need(how many ounces and how many bottles you will need to buy). If you can find the information, you can use the spreadsheet for other types of oil or for the GM additive bottle.

Stix37867

iTrader: (1)

The Gm one

alexdimen

iTrader: (13)

So how is the additive effecting compression and vac when it's not being supplied to the combustion chamber?

I'd give the credit to TCW3. I've been supplemental mixing in my 13B NA since built 25k ago and have had amazing results in the compression department.

M104-AMG

iTrader: (8)

On other forums I visit, I've been saying this for over a year:
http://www.500ecstasy.com/forums/sho...ight=good+cams

In short, the depletion of ZDDP and other anti-wear additives sucks!

Stay away from any oil with the "Energy" Starburst.

A well-respected builder of Porsche engines has even more here:

http://www.lnengineering.com/oil.html

A great non-synthetic oil with great anti-wear additives, and is diesel rated for soot and fuel dilution is the Schaeffer Supreme 7000 15w-40.

While I did an oil analysis on my Mercedes:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/foru...e=0#Post231281

I haven't done any on the FD, since I still change it every 3K miles.

:-) neil

BTW: below is an excerpt of the lnengineering article, however the site is better because it has LOTS of links regarding this issue of depleted anti-wear additives, esp. ZDDP.

Shops that used to run M1 in their race cars have either switched to Mobil's synthetic motorcycle oils or have resorted to using premium dino oills, such as Swepco 306 15w40 or Brad Penn Racing 20w50 oils, for their higher levels of protection. For most owners, the reduction in longevity of a catalytic convertor is a small price to pay considering the many thousands of dollars it costs to properly rebuild a Porsche engine.

In short, be leary of "StarBurst" labelled oils, even the CJ-4 15w-40 diesel/fleet oils.
Excerpt:
==============

The purpose of proper lubrication is to provide a physical barrier (oil film) that separates moving parts reducing wear and friction. Oil also supplies cooling to critical engine components, such as bearings. Detergent oils contain dispersants, friction modifiers, anti-foam, anti-corrosion, and anti-wear additives. These detergents carry away contaminants such as wear particulates and neutralize acids that are formed by combustion byproducts and the natural breakdown of oil. Not all motor oils are created equally when it comes to the levels of additives and detergents used. The focus of this study is on the levels of zinc and phosphorus found in motor oils, more exactly, the zinc (Zn) and phosphorus (P) that makes up the anti-wear additive ZDDP, zinc dialkyl dithiosphosphate.

Oil companies have been cutting back on the use of Zn and P as anti-wear additives, and turning to alternative zinc-free (ZF) additives and ashless dispersants since Zn, P, and sulpherated ash have been found to be bad for catalytic converters. One such ZF anti-wear additive is boron. Most of the SM and CJ-4 oils we tested contain significant concentrations of boron (B) to offset the reduction of Zn and P. The performance of these zinc-free anti-wear additives has only been proven with ultra-low sulphur fuels, not readily available in the United States with exception of new diesel fuels since 2007. Since we are discussing aircooled engines specifically, the highest levels of boron we found were in Harley Davidson’s SYN3 motor oil, which is specifically formulated for an aircooled engine, but at levels six to ten times that of what is present in any reformulated SM or CJ-4 motor oil. Additionally, Harley's SYN3 didn't reduce the Zn or P, just supplemented it with the added boron. Similarly, Swepco's 306 has high levels of boron in addition to high levels of Zn and P.

However, it is worth noting that these new API guidelines do not apply to “racing,” “severe duty,” or any motor oils that do not carry an API “starburst” seal or clearly state for off-road-use only. Motor oils meeting “Energy Conserving I or II” standards should be avoided as well as those with an API SM classfication, with it's lower Zn and P levels, which applies only to 0w20, 0w30, 5w20, 5w30, and 10w30 "ILSAC" grades. Although having been more sensitive to emissions and the environment than American standards, we find the European ACEA A3 and B3/B4 classifications, which place a cap on P levels at 0.10-0.12%, to be better in taking into consideration wear and engine longevity while limiting emissions and protecting emissions control devices. Additionally, ACEA A3 sequences require higher high-temperature high-shear (HTHS) viscosities, stay in grade sheer stability, and tighter limits on evaporative loss, high temperature oxidation, and piston varnish. This makes oils meeting these ACEA standards that much better for your Porsche, especially since wear limits are much more stringent for valve train wear, 1/6th to 1/4th the wear allowed in the sequences for API's SM standards. Porsche requires a minimum 3.5 cSt @ 150C HTHS viscosity, which is a good measure of the protection any given motor oil provides, and requires that all approved oils be of group III or better base stocks, which includes quality hydrocracked parrafinic petroleum bases like those used by Brad Penn and Swepco. In general, synthetics provide the best protection, but a good additive package and quality parrafinic base stock has been proven to work just as well.

Failure to use the right oil, use proper filtration, or observe proper changing intervals can affect the performance of even the best motor oil. This also includes changing the oil too often or not often enough. Against conventional wisdom, engine wear decreases as oil ages to a certain extent, which means that changing your oil more frequently actually causes engine wear; these findings were substantiated by studies conducted by the auto manufacturers and petroleum companies, leading to drain intervals increased from 3,000mi to 5,000-7,500mi in most domestic vehicles. It has been suggested that no more than six months or 7500mi should be observed between service intervals and vehicles driven in more demanding conditions should be serviced more frequently, rather than based off of extremely long drain intervals recommended by European manufacturers, some in excess of two years and 15,000 mi. Vehicles with track time or sustained high oil temperatures or RPMs should have their oil changed after every event. Vehicles subjected to very short drives or sustained operation in heavy traffic should indeed be serviced more often. Regular used oil analysis is the best way to determine ideal drain intervals for your driving habits. With this knowledge in hand, using a quality motor oil with proper filtration and regular service is the best thing to do for your engine and to protect your investment.

Written by Charles L Navarro
LN Engineering

M104-AMG

iTrader: (8)

I'll also echo Howard's symptom of higher vacuum levels when running an oil with a high-level of ZDDP.

There was a sale of Valvoline 10w-30 Synthetic, so I decided to try this for one track weekend, and I noticed with the A/C one my vacuum was at -16inHg.

After changing it back to Schaeffer's 7000 15w-40 semi-synthetic blend, vacuum is now at -18inHg:

http://www.schaefferoil.com/supreme_7000.html

BTW: I still have the stock OMP, so I feel safer running a semi-synthetic blend.

:-) neil

Azcamel

iTrader: (1)

so is mixing TC-W3 two stroke oil good enough or should this stuff be added to the oil in addition?

RX7 RAGE

iTrader: (22)

You mix the tc-w3 two stroke oil in the gas tank. I use Idemitsu premix.

M104-AMG

iTrader: (8)

TC-W3 adds more "lubrication", since our engines acts like a two-stroke, and the TC-W3 designation means it is ashless when it burns. It does NOT add anti-wear additives.

I add TC-W3 to the fuel-tank.

:-) neil

M104-AMG

iTrader: (8)

TC-W3 adds more "lubrication", since our engines acts like a two-stroke, and the TC-W3 designation means it is ashless when it burns. It does NOT add anti-wear additives.

On a stock OMP setup, you'll want to add TC-W3 two-stroke oil to the fuel-tank, 1/2-oz. per gallon of gasoline.

If you run a seperate resevoir for the OMP, you can place pure TC-W3, or 50/50 with a good non-synthetic engine oil.

:-) neil

Monkman33

iTrader: (28)

And based on your reputable history with this site, its members and rx7s, 5w30 it is for me too.

jkstill

iTrader: (11)

And here's another from Redline: Redline ZDDP Additive

Bruceman

iTrader: (5)

Don't waste your $ on additives!

"How Much ZDP is Enough?". It is SAE document #2004-01-2986

http://www.steelsoldiers.com/index.p...topic&p=167978

Engine Oil Mythology
Bob Olree
GMPT – Fuels & Lubes

Myths are ill-founded beliefs held uncritically by interested groups. Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. One was that the only good oils were oils made from “Pure Pennsylvania Crude Oil.” This one got started before the Second World War when engine oil was crude oil with very minimal refining, and crude oil from Pennsylvania made better engine oil than Texas or California crude. With modern refining, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.

The next myth was that “modern” detergent engine oils were bad for older engines. This one got started after the Second World War, when the government no longer needed all the detergent oil for the war effort, and it hit the market as Heavy-Duty oil. These new detergent oils gave the pre-war cars, which had been driven way past their normal life and were full of sludge and deposits, a massive enema. In some cases bad things happened such as increased oil consumption – the piston rings were completely worn out and the massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high and horrendous oil consumption. If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, this myth never would have started.

Amazingly, there are still a few people today, 60 years later, who believe that they need to use non-detergent oil in their older cars. Apparently it takes about 75 years for an oil myth to die.

Then there is the myth that new engines will not break-in on synthetic oils. Apparently there was an aircraft engine manufacturer who once put out a bulletin to this effect. Clearly the thousands and thousands of cars filled with Mobil 1 as factory-fill, which have broken-in quite well, should have put this one to rest. However, this myth is only 40 years old, so it has another 35 years to live.

All of these myths have a common theme; newer oils are bad. And this brings us to the latest myth – new “Starburst”/ API SM engine oils are bad for older cars because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. This one has gotten big play in the antique and collector car press lately. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).

Before debunking this myth we need to look at the history of ZDP usage in engine oil.

ZDP has been used for over 60 years as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability. Unfortunately, ZDP contains phosphorus, and phosphorus is a poison for automotive catalysts. For this reason ZDP levels have been reduced by about 35% over the last 10-15 years down to a maximum of 0.08% for “Starburst”/API SM oils.

Zinc dithiophosphate was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Starting in 1942, a Chevrolet Stovebolt engine with aftermarket copper/lead insert-bearing connecting rods was used for the standard engine oil qualification test. The insert-bearings were weighed before and after test to evaluate weight loss due to corrosion. The phosphorus levels of oils that passed the test were in the 0.03% range.

In the mid-1950’s, Oldsmobile got into a horsepower war between its Rocket engine and the Chrysler Hemi. Both companies went to high-lift camshafts and both got into camshaft scuffing and wear problems very fast. There were three solutions: 1) better camshaft and lifter metallurgy, 2) phosphating the camshaft, and 3) increasing the phosphorus level from ZDP up to the 0.08% range. In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (“Sequences”), two of which were valve-train scuffing/wear tests.

Knowing that this higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, some oil companies, thinking that they were offering the customer additional protection dumped even more into the oil. It was soon learned, however, that, while going above about 0.14% phosphorus might decrease break-in scuffing, longer-term wear increased. Further, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.

In the 1970’s, the ZDP level was pushed up to the 0.10% phosphorus range because it was a cheap and effective antioxidant. The increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in Cadillacs pulling Airstream trailers from thickening to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Recently, the need for this higher level of ZDP to protect the oil from thickening has been greatly reduced with the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.

Enough history. Getting back to the myth that “Starburst/API SM oils are no good for older cars, the argument put forth by the myth believers is that while these oils work perfectly well in modern, gasoline engines equipped with roller camshafts, they will cause catastrophic wear in older engines equipped with flat-tappet camshafts.

The “Starburst”/API SM oil standards were developed by a group of OEM, oil additive company, and oil company experts. When developing any new engine oil standard, the issue of “backward compatibility” is always of great importance. Indeed, the group of experts spent a lot of time researching this issue. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran “no harm” tests on older cars with the new oils; no problems were uncovered.

Beyond the “no-harm” testing, the new “Starburst”/API SM specification contains two valve-train wear tests. One is the Sequence IVA, which tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a 2.4L Nissan single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger followers. The wear limits for this test were tightened from those of the previous oil specification, even though the old spec had a higher, 0.10%, phosphorous limit. The second test is the Sequence IIIG, which evaluates cam and lifter wear. For this test, a current-production, GM Powertrain 3.8L engine with the valve train replaced with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980’s, is used. The only reason for using this older valve-train design is to ensure that older engines are protected. All “Starburst”/API SM oil formulations must pass these two tests.

In addition to the protection offered by these two valve-train wear tests and the “no-harm” testing, a review of the knowledge gained over the years in developing previous categories also indicates that no problem should be expected. For example, the new “Starburst”/API SM oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950’s. They do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960’s, but that is because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants, which were not commercially available in the 1960’s.

The oil’s ZDP level is only one factor in determining the life of an older camshaft or a new aftermarket camshaft. Most of the anecdotal reports of camshaft failures attributed to the newer oils appear to be with aftermarket camshafts. Breaking in extremely aggressive aftermarket camshafts has always been a problem. The legendary Smokey Yunick wrote that his solution to the problem was to buy multiple camshafts and simply try them in until he found one that survived break-in without scuffing.


Despite the pains taken in developing special flat-tappet camshaft wear tests that these new oils must pass and the fact that the ZDP level of these new oils is comparable to the level found necessary to protect flat-tappet camshafts in the past, there will still be those who want to believe the myth that “new oils will wear out older engines.” Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will take about 75 years for this one to die also.


February 13, 2007

Howard Coleman

iTrader: (6)

after a careful read of the Hot Rod Magazine article, and with consideration to it's sources, and the post 39 article i will continue to be a part the group keeping the "myth" alive.

i will risk my 7 bucks each oil change for the next 75 years and continue to watch my compression rise.

hc

dgeesaman

iTrader: (7)

Camshafts and tappets are nice testing references for piston engine wear, but they're not apex seals or stationary gears.

The heavily loaded components of the rotary are generally different enough from a piston engine to have me erring on the safe side.

Dave

Sgtblue

iTrader: (16)

+1.
While replacing the ZDDP through some additive might be good practice for bearings and gears ....I don't understand how it affects vacuum readings significantly if one pre-mixes.

Howard Coleman

iTrader: (6)

crankcase oil lubes the sideplates and as such the side seals and corner seals. sideseals are a major part of determining compression

M104-AMG

iTrader: (8)

First off, the SAE document was published in 2004:

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2004-01-2986

So, unless there has been a more current update, I don't think the evidence reported in the 2004 document is consistent with the latest "Energy" type of oils that were introduced around 2006.

In short, the oils made upto 2004 are OK, it is our CURRENT oils (2008+) that we have to be careful of, as they are now of a new formula.

If you read the LN Engineering post, they state:

It is these latest “Energy Conserving I or II” standards which should be avoided as well as those with an API SM or ILSAC GF-4 classifications.

I agree, there is really no need to add ZDDP supplement, IF YOU CHOSE THE CORRECT OIL FROM THE BEGINNING:

http://www.lnengineering.com/oil.html#Z13

Although the above article, does state that the GM additive isn't bad. Moreover, it states that the Mobil V-Twin/Motorcycle oils are VERY GOOD, as they have a healthy doese of ZDDP due to the multi-use of engine oil for trannys and other gear-trains in a motorcycle, and isn't the rotary engine assembled like a big set of gear-trains . . .

:-) neil

M104-AMG

iTrader: (8)

The LNEngineering article also agrees that too much ZDDP is a bad thing (http://www.lnengineering.com/oil.html#Z14), and he has targets (1200-1400ppm of Zn and P) on what the level of ZDDP should be, based-upon a virgin oil-analysis (VOA) of the base-oil.

As such, if you don't use the correct oil from the start, the best thing is to get an oil-analysis on the oil you want to use ($9), and then you'll know how much GM additive to add.

A great place to read more about oils, and to find both a VOA and used oil analysis (UOA) is on this forum:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums...p?ubb=cfrm&c=5

:-) neil

M104-AMG

iTrader: (8)

I culled some typical VOA's for our rotary engine.

:-) neil

RX7 RAGE

iTrader: (22)

Interesting Neil, did you happen to find Valvoline VR1 anywhere?

M104-AMG

iTrader: (8)

Yes, in 20w-50 from Blackstone taken 1/2007 (twice).
Blackstone notes: Zn & Phos does not match with specs on site

Zinc: 921
Phosphorus: 765
Magnesium: 7
Calcium: 1733
Moly: 0
Boron: 7
Flash: 425-F

the lot number on the bottle is 10506F A 1 8576 with an API SM

======
Since it is a SM oil, Zinc has to be below 1000.

So check your oil, and make sure it is not SM or higher rated . . .


:-( neil

Howard Coleman

iTrader: (6)

thanks Neil.

how did i ever figure things out before the web?

rice-rocketeer

To make this easier than the couple hours it took me to read this and the corresponding attached links, why don't we go over the oils that SHOULD be safe to use on rotaries (or atleast theoretically speaking and with no catalytic converters). From my reading I got:

Mobil 1 - V-Twin
Redline - Various
Castrol GTX 20W-50
Swepco 306 15w40
Brad Penn Racing 20w50 oil

What else?