New motor oil wear problems on older engines

[bewilderedbeast]

I used Castrol GTX 10W30 until 2000, since then it's been either Chevron Supreme or Havoline 10W30. They're very, very similar using the same base oil, with the Havoline (according to the Chevron techs) having slightly higher additive levels.

 

[geeaea]

Gosh ..for decades people obsessed on viscosity. They could care less about additives. Now that they've gotten over that hurdle (well some have ..as well as breaking out of the 3k/3m closet .err. prison) .. additives are the new fear factor in lubrication.

Rock on, EcoMike! Enhance your calm ..and be well

 

[Ecomike]

Gosh ..for decades people obsessed on viscosity. They could care less about additives. Now that they've gotten over that hurdle (well some have ..as well as breaking out of the 3k/3m closet .err. prison) .. additives are the new fear factor in lubrication.

Rock on, EcoMike! Enhance your calm ..and be well

Not to worry, none of us will be able to afford gasoline before long anyway:scared:, thus making all of this academic.hasta


So whats your story? Meaning what oil, what OCI and for how many miles have you gone on them and total miles on the engine? Some of your comments sounded like a synthetic for a LOT of OCI miles?

 

[Ecomike]

I used Castrol GTX 10W30 until 2000, since then it's been either Chevron Supreme or Havoline 10W30. They're very, very similar using the same base oil, with the Havoline (according to the Chevron techs) having slightly higher additive levels.

I have some Chevron supreme 20W50 (SL) I just started using on my '87 4.0, and I used the 10W40 (as I recall) on the last OC on my son's 96 Taurus.

 

[bewilderedbeast]

Not to worry, none of us will be able to afford gasoline before long anyway:scared:, thus making all of this academic.hasta


So whats your story? Meaning what oil, what OCI and for how many miles have you gone on them and total miles on the engine? Some of your comments sounded like a synthetic for a LOT of OCI miles?

Prepare to shit in your pants.:roflmao:

 

[geeaea]

Not to worry, none of us will be able to afford gasoline before long anyway:scared:, thus making all of this academic.hasta


So whats your story? Meaning what oil, what OCI and for how many miles have you gone on them and total miles on the engine? Some of your comments sounded like a synthetic for a LOT of OCI miles?

Yes, it's the end of the world as we know it, Mike. Some "shock and awe" is in our future across many sectors. I used to think that Bladerunner was the sad outcome ....but it's looking better all the time. Think Soylent Green.

..but..let's not get too distracted with our dismal future here..let's keep our eye on the ball here

My evolutions with oil in our tractor motors has been colorful.

For my wife's 4.0, if you recall, I installed a high volume oil pump when I was dismayed with the factory pressures. I then went with M1 in the 0w-30 weight and got marginal UOA over 9k-10k. I then went to Delvac 1 5w-40 and got favorable results over 10k and 12k. This bolstered the notion that visc seemed to help with these engines Fe shedding. Now D1 never was cheap and Rotella synth begged to be purchased at about half the price. I ran that in both the 4.0 and 2.5. It's in my 2.5 now ...until I lock down a fuel dilution issue.

Anyway ..along the way (we're talking several years here) ..people started getting low Fe UOA with a variety of 30 weights. At first I could attribute their results due to shorter trips ..where their 30 was still a 50 weight ..while all my vehicles reached normalized oil temp (about 13-15 miles of operation) ....but more an more jeepers were getting FAR better UOA than I was with common 5w and 10w-30 conventional fluids over far too varied conditions to ignore. The notion that visc alone was some panacea for this engines characteristic Fe shedding was severely challenged and pointed to newer additive packages playing a bigger role than older packages in combo with heavier viscosities. That is, SM 5w-30 and 10w-30 conventional oil were doing better ....consistently..then my flag ship HDEO synthetic 5w-40. As far as the HDEO's holding up in service ...they were flawless ...but as far as the engine showing reduced ..or even contained Fe shedding ..it just wasn't happening.

So, given my HV oil pump ..and knowing that I'm not going to grenade/destroy any engine over a few OCIs...I decided to see what SM 5w-20 does in comparative service. Keep in mind that a 20 weight is the only weight that allows the full output of the oil pump to pass through the engine. With a 30 weight or a 40 weight ..the pump is shunting flow and is up against its relief off idle. I also have MOPAR laminar heat exchangers on both engines ..so oil warm up is about 30% shorter in time frame ..and is always maintained at near coolant temp.

So, Pennzoil Platinum 5w-20 is my current fill. This is a 5w-20 SM experiment to see if the contemporary additive combos can trump viscosity. I tested MotorCraft 5w-20 for 3k and am now attempting to tune out variables with PP 5w-20 using 5k as the test limit mileage. Whatever oil I end up with ..it will be a 9k/6month OCI. Anything lower, imo, is a waste given the 18k that this engine sees every year. The current mileage is 128k+/-

Yes, I'm finding the "boundary layer" of the operational envelope. I may or may not find favorable results ...but I've had lousy (by my standards) results where SL heavyweights were employed ...which suggests a couple of things. One ..that older SL packages may not save you if you've got some other issue ...and that newer SM packages have the ability to protect these engines.

 

[geeaea]

Forgive my fragmented reading skills ...I missed this:

As to your last question, the answer is reaction equilibrium. The formation of the active film is reaction rate equilibrium limited by the ZDDP concentration in the oil itself, as well as the film temperature, detergent concentration and surface metal activity which is increased my metal to metal contact.


..but let's take a look at this a bit ..and for a moment "pretend" that you're attacking it with as much zeal as you are the lowered zdp levels (I, btw, suggest that everyone does this in every debate - do your own critical peer review and make your position defensible - BEFORE opinion formation).

Now you may know the starting saturation/ppm level of the oil you put into your engine. You do not, however, have a clue of how many rubbing surfaces are on any given engine in any given displacement/configuration. It may have multiple timing chains and whatnot.

That is, although you can be definitive on the supply side of the equation ..there's no way to determine WHAT the PROPER level of zdp is for any given installation without knowing its "wear signature". Hence any unqualified rhetoric inferring otherwise is incompetent.

 

[geeaea]

Ah ..edit time expired...

That is, my 2.5 has 2/3 the lifters ...2/3 the cam surface ..same timing chain length ...

So, I guess that this engine will have to deplete 2/3 the zdp on cam scuff prevention ..but the timing chain may throw the decay rate a bit askew.

So, what's the proper saturation rate for zdp for this engine? Got a clue? I don't ...nor for the 4.0 ...SBC (25% more lifters and cam surface) ..how about a 454? The chain may or may not be longer (more links getting rubbed) than another engine <shrug>

 

[Runnin'OnEmpty]

It seems that we're concentrating on cam wear with regards to lowered EP additives in this thread, but it's my understanding that ZDP is the primary lubricant for the compression rings. That area (top of the piston) is the harshest environment in the engine, even more so than the cam lobes, and I'll bet that's where the ZDP is most needed.

I'll also bet that most of the Fe shedded there (off the compression rings) will be blown out the exhaust, and not show up as elevated wear metals in the UOAs.

We all could be riding around fat, dumb and happy, with no clue what SM oils are doing to our engines until they lose power and start using oil.
Then it will be too late.....
:soapbox:

 

[bewilderedbeast]

The sky could be falling too, but I doubt it.
What will end up killing these engines will be a failure in the cooling system, resulting in overheating. Not the SM oils.
I think if iron was flying off and out the exhaust, I'd be likely to notice.

 

[WB9YZU]

We went through this scare when TEL was taken out of gas and folks started talking about massive amounts of valve failures and seat recessions. Well in fact it, was no big deal. The engines failed just like they normally would and life moved on. Those vehicles that were actually worth something got rebuilt at their normal rebuild period. Sure they made a TEL additive, and it was toxic to handle and soon went out of style.

This really isn't any different. You take a 4.0L with 200K on it and it's worn. No blaming the oil is required, you got your monnies worth and if the Jeep is still in 1/2 way good shape, perhaps you will do a good quality rebuild; or not.

On the rebuild side; If you do a good job of rebuilding an engine and break it in right, you'll have no problems regardless of this new oil formulation standard.

I feed mine 10-30W Valvoline with Fram filters about every 3-4K or less depending on use. 190K original miles. Pressure is still 45lb at 2K and around 15 at idle hot. If I get another 50K out of it I'll be happy, if not the beastie is starting to look pretty rough anyway

 

[geeaea]

It seems that we're concentrating on cam wear with regards to lowered EP additives in this thread, but it's my understanding that ZDP is the primary lubricant for the compression rings. That area (top of the piston) is the harshest environment in the engine, even more so than the cam lobes, and I'll bet that's where the ZDP is most needed.

I'll also bet that most of the Fe shedded there (off the compression rings) will be blown out the exhaust, and not show up as elevated wear metals in the UOAs.

We all could be riding around fat, dumb and happy, with no clue what SM oils are doing to our engines until they lose power and start using oil.
Then it will be too late.....
:soapbox:

Do you hear of too many I6 AMC/DC that are showing blow-by? Might they also be 20 years old or older with 100k on them ..that is, mostly sitting when they aren't plowing snow or being an ATV before ATV's were invented in summer camp duty? Or might they be being flogged on the trail ..pushing 38" meats where the owner is more interested in axle breakage than he is his 4.0 that he hopes to swap for an SBC when ol bessy craps out?

Then again, we're talking about SM here ...I guess there were "sweet spots" in oil refining. We will have to fondly look back upon SJ/SL like we did domestic manufacturing and gainful employment for all who desired it.

Alas, pour(ed) SL ... I knew it well. (wipes tear from eye)

See what you made me do!!?? (head supported by forearm - covering eyes - sobbing).

 

[bewilderedbeast]

We went through this scare when TEL was taken out of gas and folks started talking about massive amounts of valve failures and seat recessions. Well in fact it, was no big deal. The engines failed just like they normally would and life moved on. Those vehicles that were actually worth something got rebuilt at their normal rebuild period. Sure they made a TEL additive, and it was toxic to handle and soon went out of style.

This really isn't any different. You take a 4.0L with 200K on it and it's worn. No blaming the oil is required, you got your monnies worth and if the Jeep is still in 1/2 way good shape, perhaps you will do a good quality rebuild; or not.

On the rebuild side; If you do a good job of rebuilding an engine and break it in right, you'll have no problems regardless of this new oil formulation standard.

I feed mine 10-30W Valvoline with Fram filters about every 3-4K or less depending on use. 190K original miles. Pressure is still 45lb at 2K and around 15 at idle hot. If I get another 50K out of it I'll be happy, if not the beastie is starting to look pretty rough anyway

I tend to agree with you...Oh my God! You said the F word! You used Fram? Well, now you're hosed. That's a horse of a different color! Your engine will soon fly apart and you will be damned to Hell for defiling it with a Fram! Heathen.

(I use Fram for the first 4 years of my 96's life. Then I got wise and switched to the Anything But Fram Club.

 

[geeaea]

(I use Fram for the first 4 years of my 96's life. Then I got wise and switched to the Anything But Fram Club.

..but..but... the orange accent adds just the right touch to the under hood racing motif.

 

[bewilderedbeast]

But the black of Napa Gold, compete with racecar decal looks better!

 

[Ecomike]

Well one of my rear tires through a steel belt off at 60 mph on the highway today.:scared: The tire still held air but it was treadless.

It beat the Hell out of my tail light though. Can I blaim this on ZDDP depletion in the tire rubber? Perhaps on global warming. Never mind I think the Hiesenburg uncertainty principle fits this one better.:laugh3:

Anyways, while at Wally World stocking up on new treads, I found several NEW IMPROVED Mobil 1 oils, including 2 high mileage Mobil 1 formulas that were brand new, They said NEW right on the front in big bold letters, and they had API SL labels ONLY on them!!!!!! Absolutly no mention of the API SM compliance!

The new labels also specifically listed "includes additional anti wear additives for older engines" on the new labels. This was the NEW HIGH MILEAGE Mobil 1 oils. Also interesting was Mobil 1 EP oil containers (which I thought we were told had higher ZDDP in them) but they had API SM on the labels.

Hmmmmm, I wonder if they know something?

I did see Quaker State gallons still on the shelf with API SL only, and a new (I think it is new) Penzoil 20W50 with API SL only on the label (cases of it!).

 

[Ecomike]

Question for the REAL (not the wannabees!) engine gurus on this site.

What would the early signs of excess engine wear BE? i.e. Cam and lifter wear (and any other high pressure contact areas) caused by a lack of suffcient ZDDP.

What are the high pressure wear areas other than the cam lobes and flat tappets?

Would poor gas mileage be an early sign of Cam lobe/lifter wear? Any other signs?

 

[geeaea]

Corrections, it is zinc and iron polyphosphates and iron sulfide (FeS) not iron sulfate (SO4).
There are many published reports showing that the reaction is not just thermally driven or controlled, but is also mechanically generated i.e. two surfaces rubbing mechanically against each other without substantial temperatures involved. And the (2) ZDDP reaction films formed by the two different processes, thermal and mechanical, are different in their poly-molecular properties.


MAY? It also MAY NOT!
Where is your data to support this 20,000 mile theory?

There is no try (may), there is Do (will), or Do not (will not)! LOL, quote from another enlightened being, no not G'Kar.


Then why did the oil companies waste money using higher concentrations in the older formulas?

This is somewhat, IIRC, supported in the current pushrod engines offered by DC. They spec SM oil over 5000 mile OCI's ..as opposed to most everyone else, with roller valve trains can go much further (although this is not a given just because they have roller valve trains).

[/QUOTE]

Mike ..Gosh I keep missing your posts.

Jo, Einstein ...this is REDLINE'S chemical engineer I'm quoting. My own pal, who belongs to STLE ..the Society of Tribologists and Lub Engineers, says that RL's chief chemist has forgotten more than he'll ever learn.

If you have objections to what I posted ...take it up with Redline's head guru.

 

[Ecomike]

Here are some interesting details on the fuel economy startburst test for the new engine oils:

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/article_detail.asp?articleid=518&relatedbookgroup=Maintenance

 

[WB9YZU]

Question for the REAL (not the wannabees!) engine gurus on this site.

What would the early signs of excess engine wear BE? i.e. Cam and lifter wear (and any other high pressure contact areas) caused by a lack of suffcient ZDDP.

What are the high pressure wear areas other than the cam lobes and flat tappets?

Would poor gas mileage be an early sign of Cam lobe/lifter wear? Any other signs?

Pffft...

If an issue arises, and I still believe this is :bs: about ZDDP, the wear times would so inperceivable as to make the detection of a "problem" seem like normal engine wear.

Again, on a High Milage engine, you'd be silly to believe that a reduction in ZDDP killed your engine.

Gas milage and a lack of performance certainly is an issue that can be attributed to a worn Cam, but it can also be attributed to a bad Cat, worn ignition components and a host of other items. Back to the High Milage engine scenerio.

Other indications of a worn engine? Oil pressure (bottom end bearings/cam bearings/worn crank or cam journals), poor compression (rings/cylinder walls/piston wear).

Change your oil at regular intervals, change your filter, don't use Penzoil for any reason, and take off that funny aluminum foil cap.