Motor oil- what's good, what's not

[Oldshooter]

I'm gonna tell you a story about how good cars once were, because I can.

I was in college, only fifty miles north of where I grew up but it was a world of difference in winter temp. Where I grew up it had never even hit 30 below but where I was in school the temp. drops to 40 below.
I was driving a '66 Plymouth Fury with the polyspherical 318. I had not changed oil or put stronger anti-freeze in the radiator. I was still running summer set-up.
To much time in the bars, too little doing what used to be automatic.

Well I heard the radio say forty below and I suddenly realized I could be in a world of hurt.
Now this was a car that even with a bad battery, if the engine turned  it would start. Never had one like it before or after, especially after dicking around with 1950 Chevy and six-volt ignition.

I went out to the curb, put the key in, prayed and turned the key. The starter went ER-R-R and she fired up.
I opened the hood, took off the radiator cap and put my finger into a green snow cone.
It took the engine a full half-hour before the temp. needle moved at all.

Went to gas station bought some straight 10, went to a friends garage and and changed oil and put some anti-freeze in the radiator.
That is about the worst I ever had it in the frigid North, with the exception of when we used to get a lot of deep snow, regularly, I had old fashioned bias knobby snow tires on.
I lived on top of a steep hill. I got about half way up the hill and stopped, so I let it roll down and tried again. Same thing. This was before they salted the crap out everything and the town was only one third as big as it is now.
Well I had to get up that hill. I was not going to park the car and wait till a plow came, so, this time I turned the car around, got about a half-block running start and backed that car as fast as it would go right up that hill.

Damn I miss that car. She got a minimum of 18 mpg till the day she died of cancer.
I replace it with a '66 Dodge with the "modern"  318.
I got on my knees and thanked God when that on got 16 mpg with a tail-wind.

I love a good story Bob.  Those "modern"dodges werent famous for gas mileage huh.

[scootrd]

Larry , thanks for input.

Specific question 1 -

you have four 1937 motors,

1. One is a non rebuild all original daily driver driver.
2. One is a non rebuild all original prom queen that only runs the occasional show circuit etc and sits for most of the year

3. One is a rebuild with modern guts daily driver driver.
4. One is a rebuild with modern guts prom queen that only runs the occasional show circuit etc and sits for most of the year

In reading your comments , are you of the opinion

• All could benefit from the use of modern oils , daily drivers that run the roads and prom queens alike that sit most the year.
• Depending on motors overall use are you of the opinion there is no difference in the type of oils that should be considered given advances in oil technology as long as you use a reputable multi grade type oil?

Should antique auto owners who have motors that sit for long periods of time have different considerations they should take into account than antique auto owners who log miles on their old motors, rebuilds and originals alike when selecting a motor oil?.

Additional Specific question 2 related to hot rods. 

Do you see no distinction when selecting a motor oil for use in a flat tappet vs roller cam engines?
Should not internals dictate oil selection and ZDDP (1200 ppm) can be key depending on components and tolorances. 


http://www.motor.com/article.asp?article_ID=1604

Excerpt -
In recent years there have been a rash of flat-tappet camshaft problems, and in too many cases the cam makers have unjustifiably shouldered the blame. It’s rare that the problem lies with the camshaft; rather, the problem is more likely caused by improper or inadequate engine oil lubrication during camshaft break-in. Because of EPA mandates, zinc dialkyl dithio phosphate (ZDDP), a vital element of the oil mix, has been drastically reduced or even eliminated in so-called standard engine oils that are intended for late-model production engines that feature a roller-style camshaft. If the oil doesn’t contain enough ZDDP, it doesn’t offer adequate antiscuff protection for the initial break-in of flat-tappet cams, or for long-term engine operation, either. ZDDP is an antiwear and antioxidant additive initially developed in 1930 to prevent engine bearing corrosion. It’s also referred to as ZDP or ZZDP. ZDDP also features excellent antiscuff properties.

Your knowledgeable thoughts on the subject greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance,

Semper Fi

[Larry L]

Interesting that you pull out the YM 1937. Most engines of that period did not have pressurized lubrication- no oil pump. They used the splash/cup method of getting oil to the parts. Oils during this period were a non- detergent type as speced by the car makers so the oils didn't have additives like they do today. The reason for the spec of non detergent- because the detergents of the day would foam in an engine scenario of the splash/cup method. Obviously, foam does not lubricate. If you're familiar with API classifications, it would be an SA rated oil. But engine life was short back then and most of it was due to the fact we didn't have the refining techniques we have today and there were no additives being used. It wasn't until 1941 that Chevrolet had their mainstay engine, a modified 216 they called the 235 engine, that they had a pressurized oil system. So basically, anything you use today, including El Cheapo is better than what was used in the car originally. So if I had these engine and I'm assuming no oil pump with babbitt bearings, I would use an oil that covers all of the bases in strong film strengths, decent additive package to keep things clean and slick, one that has anti-foaming agents, and it would NOT be a synthetic. I'd be using the common Rotella 15w-40 oil. These old engines had sloppy at best carbs and fuel dilution was an issue. That's why the 15w-40 versus a 5w-30.


I'm sure someone is going to ask so I'll answer here- why NO synthetics. As I've mentioned before, the Gp IIIs are kinda like a dead fluid- yeah it's a stretch to call it that but wait. It does nothing for the seals, it doesn't naturally bind or support the additives, and it's not particularly good at staying on parts when the engine isn't running. The formulators use a tackifier, like a polymer of ethylene or propylene, to keep the oil on the parts- yet another additive to make it work. Additives are a lot like ammo. When the mag is full it's great but as it used up- it sucks. Additives are consumed for the most part over the life of the oil.


Roller cam engines has been argued forever it seems. With todays engines we are seeing a much different cam profile and mapping that we didn't have to deal with before. Flat tappet engines frankly can't keep up with the profiles, hence the need for a roller lifter and stronger springs on the valves. We have cam profiles on the streets today that produce zero vacuum at idle because of the valve overlap is so long(it's an emissions thing). You'll find coffee can looking vacuum canisters all over under the hood so that the vacuum operated things like the A/C continues to work. Let the check valve get bad and the A/C quits at idle or at full throttle. But todays roller engines provide a much closer mapping than you'll ever get with a flat tappet. That close mapping is critical to todays computer controlled engines.


In regards to the cam guys saying ZDDP is required- BS. All these guys have to do is include moly with the steels formulation and the issue goes away. But that's an expensive fix versus claiming that the oil you used screwed up a perfectly good cam. What I've suggested to many rebuilders is to play their game by using their break-in additive. It's not like it's extremely expensive. If there's an issue, the cam maker has no way out except to honor the warranty.

[Ranger99]

i didn't think this would go so many
pages, so i wanna play too.


what is this "nasa-developed" additive
that allows one to drive with no oil pan
or fly a small aircraft with no oil
i've used some before called lubritex
that really did knock time off our et
on the drag car, and gave me 2 mpg
on my 4 wheel drive truck.
i haven't seen any of those lately, you
know where the guys take the pan off
of the engine on the stand?
and the guy i bought the additive from
8 or 10 years ago is nowhere to be found.
i'm told that they originally had good additive
to be sold, then when the hook was set,
they sold lightweight oil in the same bottle.
   ? ? ?

[Empty Quiver]

Are the high mileage oils a gimmick? I have no oil leaks, the consumption honestly hasn't changed much.

This is a rather odd interval to change oil, but it is what I do. I buy 8qts of M-1 5w-30. 6 go in with a new filter and when the 8th qt is "burned" I repeat. This is generally around 8 or 9 thousand miles (closer to 8 these days). this program has lasted me 225k now. At 200k the compression was checked and all was well. This is a '00 5.4 Ford.[size=78%]  [/size]

As per your admonition I have started with the extended M-1.

[Larry L]

Lubritex is not anything from NASA, that was just advertising hype. Lubitex is the precursor to Prolong Engine Treatment. Both are chlorinated napthenics. Would you like to guess what that is? Let me give you an idea. Have you ever gotten Clorox on yer hands  Notice how slick your hands are. That's because the chlorine is dissolving the fats in your hands and that's the slick you feel. These types of additives work in the same manner by dissolving the fats in the oil and it makes for a more lubricious oil- no doubt. So why is it bad? Well, when a cold engine is started, it produces condensate or water. As this condensate will form on the cylinder walls it gets washed into the oil. Motor oils are formulated to handle average amounts of condensate. But when you add these additives to the oil something very different happens as the engine heats up. The water combines with the chlorine to make hydrochloric acid. It doesn't take long for the acid neutralizing additives found in all motor oils to be overwhelmed. Now you have hydrochloric acid in the pan. Welcome to the world of "if you don't know what's in the bottle- DON"T USE IT". Advertising is a strong lever to part people from their money. Don't be among them. There are very FEW additives out there that are worth the time to bottle them. It's a billion dollar business that these yahoos enjoy taking from unsuspecting folks.


EQ, the 5.4 Triton has low tension ring packs. Yours is probably in need of help as it sounds like you have a few that are stuck- it's a common thing with these engines.. You can approach this two ways. You can use an after market additive called Auto-Rx that slowly will clean these ring packs. The downside is the cost. Or for the same money, use an oil with more solvency and a strong detergent package. Might consider using G Oil 5w-30 the next oil change. Being an ester based oil it naturally has more solvency and the current additive package is second to none. It might just cure that Triton of eating the oil. FWIW, not all engines respond well to any synthetic based lube. The Tritons are one of them. If you try the G-Oil, I'd forget the M1 and switch to a blend and Motorcraft is a super bargain or Pennzoil yellow bottle, 5w-30. Considering the compression you have, there's no reason for this unit to be eating oil.

[scootrd]

I have learned so much reading this thread . Thanks Larry . One of the more interesting threads on GB in quite a while.

[Ranger99]

ha-ha!
thanks! kinda what i thought.
i don't believe there is anything that will
replace clean oil and a quality filter.

[JonnyReb]

I have learned so much reading this thread . Thanks Larry . One of the more interesting threads on GB in quite a while.

 X2

  Never thought i'd say this but after this thread and the studying that LarryL's links lead me too, i think i'm dropping the lifelong use of additives i've followed quite religiously, not sure if it'll add life to my engines as Lucas products certainly never seemed to hurt anything over the many hundreds of thousands of miles i've used it in various motors but it sure may save me some money. Switching to the really promising "G" oils in our vehicles that use 5w-30 and staying with Rotella in my older higher mileage gas burning trucks. Thanks for all the great info on this thread.  J

[dw06]

Like others I have really learned allot on this thread. I have a question so I can learn more.
Bought an 07 ford focus, it came from dealer with Motorcraft 5w-20 synthetic blend oil in it. 1st oil change I switched to Mobil 1 5w-20. Ready for next oil change soon, and was looking at the Mobil 1 ep. The price difference between the Motorcraft 5w-20 and Mobil 1 5w-20 ep is $10 for 5 quart jug.
My question is, how good is the Motorcarft oil, and which would you go with for your own car? Thanks for any info.

[cpileri]

Sir,
is there any merit to the new(er) hexagonal boronitride oil additives?
C-

[Larry L]

My girl has a 2006 Focus so I'm familiar with the car. If an econobox is the goal, the Focus is, in my opinion, the best out there. The area of concern is the oil and the two products considered are M1 EP and Motorcraft in viscosity 5w-20. Hands down the Motorcraft is the better oil for that application. Per CP rep, the MC oil is an acid washed Gp III base oil that is the purest manufactured today. Percentage of Gp III is 65% per CP and that's more than some of the oils marketed today as a synthetic  Motorcraft has always had one of the best additive packages around. It's been believed that Ford has subsidized Motorcraft oils for years as there's a lot of value in the bottle at a fairly cheap price. Ford does not comment in this regard. The HTHS rating of M1EP is 2.6 while MC is 2.8. Per Lube engineers  a HTHS rating of 2.8 or higher is required to have average wear at the bearings. M1EP falls short.


CP= Conoco- Phillips, maker of the worlds finest Gp III base oils.
HTHS= High Temp, High Shear, the oils actual test viscosity as it's being sheared at the bearings.



hBN additives have been around for quite a while and is known as white graphite. The Japanese came up with a hBN in the late 80s that was workable in a dry lube form. In the last decade or so, the manufacture of it has seen the size of the crystal reduced significantly so it's more applicable in motor oils. The usable size in motor oils is .5 to 1.0 microns. Otherwise it won't stay in suspension and usually ends up in the filter. Concentrations at a max of 700 ppms or expect issues. Most of your better motor oils today have it in the formulation now. While I've seen microscopic improvements in some of the nano titaniums, I'm not a fan of any nano lube technologies....yet. When the engine makers can come up with finer cylinder walls where nano lubes are of value, then you have something. But todays mirror finished cylinder walls when viewed under a microscope look a volcanic field where the nano crystals just get lost in the hills and valleys- it makes no contribution to the lubricity at all. Should the engine makers start using ceramic liners, the nanolubes will be worth their weight in gold. So does it have value in a modern engine? Not in my opinion. Later on, probably, as engine technologies and manufacturing catch up to todays available lube technologies. But there are lots of folks out there that are making money from it like BoronMax, just in case you're looking for a supplier. It has significant value though, as a bullet lube.

[cpileri]

Thanks!
That's interesting that your assessment on the smootheness on the pipes is the same as the theory on bullet coating; even though the boron seems to rely on the fluid interphase to work.
One company that made me look cross-eyed at the whole hBN thing is seliing a hBN containign fuel additive; proposing that it will coat the internanls fo the engine analogous to the motor oil lubrication use.
 
but i was wondering if any of this boron gets into the fuel, will it end up a ceramic coating on the spark plugs, ruining them?
 
I dont knwo alot about engines, but the fuel additive made me suspicious.
 
C-

[charles p]

I see Mobile 1 has a version with a 15,000 mile change warranty or one year.  I now only drive my truck only about 9K miles per year and generally change it each summer with Napa synthetic.  I now have 92,000 miles on a 2005 Z-71.  Should I just stick with what has worked for me or upgrade to the extended Mobile 1 product?

[Larry L]

Lots of M1 fans out there. And like a lot of things, as time goes on the usefulness starts to diminish. M1 has been going on reputation since they had to reformulate from Katrina. If you pay a premium price for something you should get premium results. M1 doesn't deliver in regular or the EP version. If wear metals are a good yard stick, then M1s wear metals will be medium to heavy depending on the environment. A conventional can easily beat those numbers these days. But old habits die hard as do brand loyalties. The NAPA synthetic you've been using is relabeled Valvoline Maxlife made by Ashland. It's good stuff. If you're happy with it, stay with it. If not happy with it and you want to stay with a syntheitc, look at Pennzoils Ultra. It will keep the piston skirts far cleaner than M1, have lower wear metals, and should go the 9000 miles. The caveat to this is how the 9000 miles are accumulated. If it's short trips, avoid any synthetic based oil and change twice a year. The issue will be sludge that's formed from the condensating moisture from cold startup and the engine not having enough time to cook it off. If the engine sees at least a 30 minute run at full temp most often, sludge won't be an issue.