Kirbans ZDDP

[GNocide]

racing oil that is safe for the street?
something doesn't sound right there.
its either 500 mile racing oil or its street able for 3000-5000 +miles

accel
$1.29 a quart?-that ought to be enough right there to not trust it.
the additive is more then the oil
but
it hasn't been tested yet as far as i know by richard

 

[BASS]

GNocide, yes, there the Not Street Legal Racing oil by Valvoline (which you probably should change every 500 miles), and theres also the Valvoline VR-1 Racing oil which states on the bottle itself that it can be used for street applications and it contains ZDDP (I assume that since it says its for the streets that it can be changed every 3,000 miles)...

http://www.valvoline.com/products/VR-1 Racing Motor Oil.pdf

As for the Accel, it sounds too good to be true at that rediculous price, but who knows??

 

[V6POWER]

BASS--The website you posted is dated 5-23-06. Those numbers probably aren't current.

 

[BASS]

Look Quick,

Thats the PDF of the VR1 Racing oil that the current Valvoline website has for it. I saw an actual bottle of this stuff in person today and it still mentions that it has zddp right on the description on the back of the bottle. So, I dunno, maybe its still the same?? Click on Product Info on the left and thats the info for this VR1 stuff. Maybe the website wasnt updated?

VR1 Racing Motor Oil
__________________

 

[A2000RICH]

...Now, get this---I found an Accel oil today in walmart (10W40) thats actually an SF rated oil! It even states on the bottle that its specifically for cars made before 1988! Im sure this oil has PLENTY of zddp in it, and it was only $1.29 a quart! Would it be safe to use this 10W40 weight oil in our cars, and if so, would anybody trust this crappy Accel oil in the first place??

OK consider what this product is carefully before you even think of running it in your car. The reason that SG oil was made was SPECIFICALLY to address the severe sludging issues that had arisen with SF oils. To quote the ASTM Fuels and Lubricants Handbook MNL37WCD, page 468:
"API SG oils addressed oxidation and sludge formation concerns that had arisen in the field ".

The high temperature stability and anti-sludging characteristics of oil base stocks has continually been improved all the way up to and including SM oils. Since this Accel oil claims to only perform to SF standards, I would not want its inferior characteristics in my engine. As if the SF grade was not bad enough, right on the bottle itself it warns the potential buyer:
"CAUTION...It may not provide adequate protection against the build-up of engine sludge"
At least they are being honest about the serious limitations of SF grade oils, I'll give them that.

Another issue we have with this oil is its incorrect implementation of the API certification labeling. It throws doubt that it was actually ever sent to be certified as SF oil in the first place.

Another caveat I have about this oil is its cost. It is in the same price class as house brand oil marketed by Wal-Mart. As somebody who has done business with Wal-Mart, I can tell you that they squeeze every single penny out of vendors. How can a company as small as Accel compete with Wal-Mart's oils in price unless the oil is cheaper and inferior in the first place? They certainly don't think much for it at that price.

One thing we also noticed when decanting some to send for testing is that it smells like hypoid lubricant...odd, and has that slip-stick feel between the fingers. I have no idea what that is about, but all in all, not a product I would want near my TRs. At any rate I am sending it out for testing, and will post the results here.

As an additional note, this month's Buick GSCA magazine has a very good article about oil written by Richard Lasseter. Richard is a very intelligent guy who is serious about cars, and who just happens to be a chemical engineer with years of experience and uncommon common sense. It is for this reason that I feel his take on this subject of oils has some weight. In the same issue is a piece by our director of engineering, Howard Hoyt, who provides his take on the issue of ZDDP and oil.

As always: Caveat Emptor

 

[salvageV6]

I think the last board owner thought Rich Lassiter was a snake oil salesman. :biggrin:

So cheaper automatically means inferior?

I think the GSCA knows how to squeeze the last penny out of unsuspecting "club members".

It is for this reason that I feel his take on this subject of oils has NO weight.

It's just as easy to bash the GSCA as Walmart in the Buick community.

As always Caveat Emptor.

I'd run SF oil in my car today, after all it worked for at least 2 years with no sludge buildup before in a daily driver.

3K oil and filter changes are the norm around here.

I guess if my car were in a garage and wrapped in plastic it wouldn't be a good choice. :biggrin:

 

[Pronto]

So cheaper automatically means inferior?:

Unfortunately in my field (dental lab) it does.

If you check some of the model #'s that Walmart sells, the products look similar to other more expensive models but they have less features or are made with cheaper materials even though they look like the model at other stores. Packaging is also another cute trick. The can or box looks exactly the same but is a few oz. less or going the other way they package is larger but you pay more per oz. than a smaller size at another store.

 

[BASS]

I decided to go with the Valvoline VR-1 (10W30) oil since this Accel oil only comes in 10W40 (I only stick with 10W30 all year round)..

 

[RUQWKNF27]

As said before in this thread Royal Purple has the correct amount of additives. I even think Richard agreed on this one. I run XPR 10W40 for a while now with no problems. For those who do not want to pay 7 bucks a qt ZDDP is a good choice.

 

[salvageV6]

I was only responding to the cheesy azz marketing ploys now being used as "scientific" or "expert" advice.

Involving the GSCA in the marketing isn't going to endear everyone in the Buick community that's for sure.

The technical aspect of the thread can stand on it's own merit.

I wonder how many other sludged up motors there were out there back in the early days of Turbo Buicks when ALL you had was SF oil or even earlier grades?

Again assuming cars not in garages and shrink wrapped.

I'll be heading out to Walmart to see what they have for oil soon, 10-40 works for me in 3 seasons in one car

Anyone know if Accel makes a synthetic SF? :biggrin:

Has anyone answered the question yet if an oil is rated for more than one classification such as SL/SM or SJ/SL/SM if it must pass the same tests as all classifications for which it holds?

And lastly if there actually is a simulated flat tappet test for SM rated oils can those results be obtained?, and if every SM oil passes those tests for the rating, why is there this discussion to begin with?

 

[A2000RICH]

against my better judgement i'll ignore the mindless comments and answer the three questions that demonstrate a modest amount of rational thought

I wonder how many other sludged up motors there were out there back in the early days of Turbo Buicks when ALL you had was SF oil or even earlier grades?

the answer was many, many thousands------SF came out in the early 80's and it took several years for the problems to surface------our turbo cars were not really affected because they never got a chance to use SF for more than a couple years since SG came out in 1988------the problem was so severe that the API felt the need to specify an entire new class of oil ie SG--------my source for info-------"ASTM fuels and lubricants handbook : technology, properties, performance and testing" page 472--------this is a 1087 page book available for only $325 and is written by numerous folks that have forgotten more about oil than you and I will ever collectively know-------I would suggest purchasing it since it will answer a lot of the elementary questions that you raise-------

Has anyone answered the question yet if an oil is rated for more than one classification such as SL/SM or SJ/SL/SM if it must pass the same tests as all classifications for which it holds?

the answer to this is yes-----again the same book would have answered this for you

And lastly if there actually is a simulated flat tappet test for SM rated oils can those results be obtained?, and if every SM oil passes those tests for the rating, why is there this discussion to begin with?

the answer to this multipart question is 1-yes---------2- there is but its in different books----they cost me over $1300 to obtain and I would share them except that they are marked on every page "Copyright by ASTM Int'l 2007 Downloaded/printed by Richard Clark () pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized." 3- while the SM graded oils did pass these tests close examination of the tests shows that the tests were done on very low performance engines with low pressure springs at low power levels--------and the newer tests allow for more wear than similar test sequences for earlier years------don't believe me?? I suggest reading ASTM D 5533-98, D 6984-07, D 7320-06, D 4485-07 and API 1509 sixteenth edition April 2007-------read and understand this info and you can answer for yourself the question "why is there this discussion to begin with?"

 

[GNocide]

well then since salvagev6 offers no proof or test results-(surprise)
it is deemed garbage

he made a good post whore in this one

what happened was he apparently ran out of smilies long before wit but definitely somewhere after common sense

start your own thread about plastic wrap cars and other **** you cant touch or ever understand but like to comment on

 

[salvageV6]

Speaking of mindless comments.

GNocide the only test results are those of running my car on SF oils for years with no sludge build up.

That's a factual test.

Maybe you should try to duplicate the feat before ranting.

I disagree with the thousands of sludged up motors as I have never heard much about that problem in our motors for over 10 years reading the boards here, and of course there.

Some people here have purchased new turbo cars and actually drive them.

A modest amount of "rational thought" would not use the GSCA to market anything BUT a snake oil product.

Back at ya for snide comments.

If my questions are so elementary perhaps they were asked because I already knew the answer to them.

Certainly the one regarding multiple ratings.

Your marketing take on them perhaps was all I was after?

Thank you for sharing some of the $$$ info.

I guess with more "facts" coming to light every day regarding oil we can all become more educated as opposed to marketed at.