You can type here any text you want

ZDDPlus/EOS Update

Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Phoff

Active Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
988
update oil & current EOS

Richard Clark has just gotten the test results back on
the current reissue EOS.

The amount of zddp concentrate remains unchanged. in
the new EOS bottles. However, they have added calcium
to the concentration which is a detergent. You would need two bottles of EOS for every
oil change to equal the concentration of ZDDP found in
our readily available 4 ounce bottle of ZDDPlus in a
typical 4-5 quart oil change.

We are discovering that more articles concerning
current oil issues and flat tappet cams are appearing
in publications that go to various engine shops that
are not typically found on newstands. This is one
reason engine rebuilders are quick to embrace our
product.


Pete
Kirban Performance
 
Oil's Well That Ends Well

It's great to hear once again

from yet another source that

the time-tested & trusted GM EOS

is unchanged w/just a new part #,

just as has been known & posted

by other sources since December.


It's great to have the GM EOS re-issue

available thru all the GM dealerships

Parts Departments across the USA,

under part number: 88862586


Now, all those who gouged people

on GM EOS when led to believe it

was "gone forever", and all those

who hoped to hype the hysteria

and foster a "dependency" on

their "miraculous re-formulation"

are left to wither on the vine

with no demand for their inventory.


Yes, oil's well that ends well! -- :)

-----------------------------------------------


General Motors & the "Zinc-In-Oil-Scare"


The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).

Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability.

ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942.

In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the
potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by
ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range.

In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests.

A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better.

Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%.

And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.

By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range.

However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.


Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth 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 facts say otherwise.

Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies.

In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.


The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests.

- Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.

- Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s


Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s.

(True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)

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 probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
2 good products i think

Claude
 

Attachments

  • zinc add.jpg
    zinc add.jpg
    70.8 KB · Views: 1,272
Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s.

right the 50s-
when our engines were made to those perfect tolerances exactly- this is priceless info omfg

(True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)
ashless antioxidents :confused: - it was in our face the whole time- your a genius!

i cant believe all those liars and jerk racers and engine builders- and regular people too that lied and told us about there cam and engine wear falures in the years 2000 and up - damn those guys
-

i mean such great technology form the 60s wow:rolleyes:
 
Here is some more info....its not a myth.OIL IS KILLING OUR CARS!!!!!

By: Keith Ansell, Foreign Parts Positively, Inc.

About a year ago I read about the reduction of zinc dialkyl dithiophosphate (ZDDP) in the oils supplied with API approval that could affect sliding and high pressure (EP) friction in our cars. The reduction of these chemicals in supplied oils was based on the fact that phosphates reduce the effectiveness and eventually damage catalytic converters and introduce minute amounts of pollutants into our atmosphere.

A couple of months ago I had a member of the Columbia Gorge MG Club bring a totally failed camshaft and lifters back to me that had only 900 miles on them!! I immediately contacted the camshaft re-grinder (Delta Cam) and asked how this could happen. They were well aware of this problem as they were starting to have many failures of this type.

In the past, the lack of a molybdenum disulfide camshaft assembly lubricant, at assembly, was about the only thing that could create this type of problem. My customer has assembled many engines and had lubricated the camshaft properly. Then the bad news came out: It’s today’s “modern” API (American Petroleum Industry) approved oils that are killing our engines: Meaning all flat tappet (cam follower) equipped engines, as used in all BMC products, all British Leyland products, most pushrod engines prior to 1980, early Volvos, American high-performance engines and many others.

Next call: To a major camshaft supplier, both stock and performance (Crane). They now have an additive for whatever oil you are using during break-in so that the camshaft and lifters won’t fail in an unreasonably short period of time. They also suggest using a diesel rated oil on flat tappet engines.

Next call: To a racing oil manufacturer that we use for the race cars (Red Line Oil). Their response: “We are well aware of the problem and we still use the correct amounts of those additives in our products”. They continued to tell me they are not producing API approved oils so they don’t have to test and comply. Their oils were NOT the “new, improved and approved” ones that destroy flat tappet engines! “We just build the best lubricants possible”. Sounds stupid, doesn’t it, New-Approved but inferior products, but it seems to be true for our cars.

To top this off: Our representative from a major supplier of performance and street engine parts (EPWI) stopped by to “warn us” of the problem of the NEW oils on flat tappet engines. This was a call that the representative was making only because of this problem to warn their engine builders! “The reduction of the zinc, manganese and phosphates are causing very early destruction of cams and followers”. They are recommending that, for now at least, there must be a proper oil additive put in the first oil used on new engines, beyond the liberal use of molydisulfide assembly lube. They have been told that the first oil needs the additive but remain skeptical that the first oil is all that is necessary. Their suggestion: Use diesel rated oils such as Delo or Rotella that are usually available at auto stores and gas stations.

This problem is BIG! American Engine Rebuilder's Association (AERA) Bulletin #TB2333 directly addresses this problem. I had a short discussion with their engineer and he agreed with all that I had been finding.

Next phone call was to a retired engineer from Clevite, a major bearing and component manufacturer. First surprise was that he restored older British Motor bikes. The second surprise was that he was “VERY” aware of this problem because many of the old bikes had rectangular tappets that couldn’t rotate and are having a very large problem with the new oils. He has written an article for the British Bike community that verify all the “bad news” we have been finding.

Comp Cams put out “#225 Tech Bulletin: Flat Tappet Camshafts”. They have both an assembly lube and an oil additive. The telling sentence in the bulletin was “While this additive was originally developed specifically for break-in protection, subsequent testing has proven the durability benefits of its long term use. This special blend of additives promotes proper break-in and protects against premature cam and lifter failure by replacing some of the beneficial ingredients that the oil companies have been required to remove from the “off-the–shelf oil”.

Next question: Now what do we do?

From the camshaft re-grinders (DeltaCam) “Use oils rated for diesel use”, Delo (Standard Oil product) was named. About the same price as other quality petroleum based oils. They have the ZDDP we need in weights we are familiar with.

From one camshaft manufacturer (Crane): “use our additive” for the first 500 miles.

From General Motors (Chevrolet): add EOS, their oil fortifier, to your oil, it’s only an 8-ounce can (This problem seems to be something GM has known about for some time!). The additive says for break-in only, some dealers add it to every oil change.

From Redline Oil: Use our street formulated synthetics. They have what we need! Early in 2007 they will be supplying a “break-in oil” specifically for our cars.

From Castrol: We are beginning to see a pattern emerging on older cars. It may be advantageous to use a non-approved lubricant, such as oils that are Diesel rated, 4 Cycle Motorcycle oils and other specified diesel oils. They will be supplying “new oils” specifically for our cars in early 2007.

For you science buffs: ZDDP is a single polar molecule that is attracted to Iron based metals. The one polar end tends to “Stand” the molecule up on the metal surface that it is bonded to by heat and friction. This forms a sacrificial layer to protect the base metals of the cam and tappet from contacting each other. Only at very high pressures on a flat tappet cam is this necessary because the oil is squeezed/wiped from the surface. This high pressure is also present on the gudgeon pin (wrist pin) in diesel engines, therefore the need for ZDDP in all diesel engines.

Second part of the equation is Molybdenum disulfide (Moly). The moly bonds to the zinc adding an additional, very slippery, sacrificial layer to the metal. I found out that too much of the moly will create problems; lack of this material reduces the effectiveness of the ZDDP. The percentage, by weight is from .01 to .02%, not much, but necessary according to the chemists.

Now there is no denying that there is a problem, lack of ZDDP (Zinc Dialkyl DithioPhosphate) in modern oils kills at least our cams and tappets. There seems to be no known alternative.

Our cars are a small percentage of the total market and BIG Corporate, the American Petroleum Institute and possibly government have made decisions that are detrimental to our cars. This problem isn’t going away. The trend today is to lighter weight oils to decrease drag, which increases mileage. Most of these seem to be the “Energy Conservation” oils that we cannot use.

Redline oil and others are suggesting a 3,000-mile break-in for new engines! Proper seating of rings with today’s lubricants is taking that long to properly seal. Shifting to synthetics before that time will just burn a lot of oil and not run as well as hoped.

The “Energy Conservation“ trend was first led by automakers to increase mileage numbers and secondly because the ZDDP and other chemicals degrade the catalytic converter after extended miles, increasing pollution. Most of us don’t have catalytic converters and the mileage gains are not that significant.

Many oil companies may have products that will continue to function well in our cars. Castrol, Redline, Valvoline, Mobil, Shell, Amsoil and others have now commented on my original article and are making suggestions. Some companies are offering short lists of “acceptable” oils, others just one. One company has responded without any substantive information in a two-page “bulletin”. By their account all their oils are superior and applicable. This is typical of many companies.

Some oil manufacturers are pointing to metallurgy, blaming poorly built cams and followers. This may have some validity but the bottom line is that there has been a big increase in failures with products that have been on the market for many years but are now having greatly increased failures. To me the bottom line is, if the lubricants are working there is no contact between surfaces, it shouldn’t matter what the materials used in the products are, within reason.

On “modern” production cars, stay with the manufacturers’ suggestions. For any car produced before about 1990 the owner needs to be aware that the factory suggested lubricant may have changed and may not be applicable. Flat tappet, stock, performance or modified may be affected. MGBs from 1975 to 1980 must choose to sacrifice the cam or the catalytic converter as an example of how difficult the decisions are becoming!

Yes, there is more! Castrol does understand our dilemma and is actively looking into what it can do to support our cars. We can soon expect to see products from them with specific application to classic cars. Red Line will be offering a “break-in” oil soon after the first of the year. Shell’s Rotella will be good until about June or July of 2007 with possibly nothing after that date. Delo (Chevron) will also be questionable after the new “CJ-4” standards come in the middle of 2007.

Now the important information: Oils that may be correct for our cars today: (As reported by manufacturers by 12-31-06, NOTE: many have changed their recommendations over the last three months!

* Castrol: Syntec 5W-40, Syntec 20W-50, Grand Prix 4-Stroke Motorcycle oil in 10W-40 and 20W-50, TWS Motorsport 10W-60*, BMW Long Life 5W-30 ( full synthetic, available only at BMW dealerships)
* Red Line: 10W-30, 10W-40 (Synthetic oils)
* Valvoline: VR-1 20W-50 (Conventional oil)
* Amsoil: 20W-50(TRO), 10W-40(AMO), 15W-40(AME) & 20W-50(ARO)
* Mobil: Mobil 1 5W-30 and 20W-50 (Synthetic)
* Chevron: Delo 400
* Shell: Rotella

What we are doing at Foreign Parts Positively has been difficult to determine but with few options left, the following is what we are forced to do. Some of our choices have been based on the manufacturer’s willingness to help and specific reports. This list will change in the next months with Castrol and Red Line adding products just for our cars.

* Break in: Delo 400 30W (A break-in oil will be available from Redline soon!)
* Conventional oil: Valvoline VR-1 20W-50
* Synthetic: Red Line 10W-30 in newer engines, 10W-40 on older engines.
* Break-in is now 3,000 miles (using Delo 400 30W) before changing to running oil.
* Oil change interval:
o 1 year or 18,000 miles with Red Line synthetic
o 1 year or 2,500 miles with conventional oil (Valvoline VR-1 20W-50).

Thank you to Castrol, Redline, Christiansen Oil, Valvoline, Mobil, Shell, Standard Oil and Amsoil for input. We’re sure this subject will continue: Please forward any new information on this subject you may encounter.

We have received some very interesting material from “Mr Moly” that may be putting molybdenum disulfide (MoS) into this discussion. It seems that ZDDP plus MoS is the best from the oil companies’ opinion but MoS by itself may be beneficial. Some racers swear by it. The literature seems to support “Mr. Moly’s” position.

Keith M. Ansell

Foreign Parts Positively, Inc.

Foreign Parts Positively

Kma4285@msn.com

360-882-3596
 
EOS Retail $19.09

ZDDPlus Retail $9.99

EOS is a good product but you need TWO 16oz bottles to get the correct zddp concentration. You only need ONE bottle of ZDDPlus.

Pete
Kirbans
 
Back
Top