1966 327 Flat Tappet Valvoline Restore and Protect?

[Hohn]

EFI is easier now than ever. But stabbing a cam is a few hours work on a PU with a SB Chevy. And you could use a nice mid-range cam that would offer a nice flat torque curve. I'd do it.

As would I.

street car 327 cam specs:
Duration at 0.050: 200-205 degrees
LSA: 110-114 degrees.
As much lift as you are comfortable with on a flat tappet with your spring limits.
Install about 4 degrees advanced.

 

[Hohn]

I'm going to be working on my father in-laws 66 C-10 soon with the original 220hp 327. It is completely stock and will remain stock. Can Valvoline Restore and Protect 5w30 be used in this engine without harm to flat tappet lifters and cam? From my research it seems like it would be more than adequate since it doesn't have a high lift cam and stiffer valve springs. But I wanted to consult the hive mind first. I recall watching Lake Speeds video discussing modern oils being well up to the task for non-high performance flat tappet engines. I mainly want to use it because it's generally a great oil and will clean it up if it needs it, certainly can't hurt. I know the engine ran very well a few years ago when he got it and was mechanically very quiet. We don't know if it's an oil burner or anything like that, I don't think the engine even leaks oil.

The list of oils that would work well in this engine is many times longer than the list of oils to avoid. Heck, almost any modern 20 grade would be sufficient if you have the oil pump capacity to keep pressure up. These old engines just don't load stuff very highly because they were designed when oils were categorically of much lower quality than today.

You can use Restore and Protect. Or any Euro oil. Or VR1. Or any Maxlife 30, 40, or 50 grade.

The myth that old engines need old, worse formulations just needs to die. Oil specs have never gotten less demanding over time.

Every API SP/SQ oil will crush any API SC oil from 1966, which is what that engine was designed around in terms of limitations.

 

[TacoFergie]

EFI is easier now than ever. But stabbing a cam is a few hours work on a PU with a SB Chevy. And you could use a nice mid-range cam that would offer a nice flat torque curve. I'd do it.

Yeah, it would be pretty easy to do a cam in the truck. Nice thing is on the SBC's is the heads don't need to be removed either. But I'm not getting ahead of myself yet. haha I want to get it going and get some miles on it before doing anything like that. I also need to find out what rear gear set it has. From what I've found it could be a 3.73 or 4.10 (assuming it hasn't been changed). If it has the 4.10, I'll probably look to swap to a shorter ratio to keep RPM's down on the highway. I don't expect this truck to be quick for the time being, just a fun cruiser. Later on....who knows???

 

[TacoFergie]

The list of oils that would work well in this engine is many times longer than the list of oils to avoid. Heck, almost any modern 20 grade would be sufficient if you have the oil pump capacity to keep pressure up. These old engines just don't load stuff very highly because they were designed when oils were categorically of much lower quality than today.

You can use Restore and Protect. Or any Euro oil. Or VR1. Or any Maxlife 30, 40, or 50 grade.

The myth that old engines need old, worse formulations just needs to die. Oil specs have never gotten less demanding over time.

Every API SP/SQ oil will crush any API SC oil from 1966, which is what that engine was designed around in terms of limitations.

Many good points made! I was thinking along the same lines that oils haven't gotten worse.

I doubt it has stuck rings or anything, but Valvoline Restore and Protect would at least clean it up nicely if it did.

I suppose I did not consider Euro oils. If that's the case, then maybe the most universally loved 0w30 ESP would be a good choices?

 

[McRightclick]

I absolutely understand where you're coming from. I may just go that route. Maybe frankenbrew it with 1qt VR1 20w50 and the rest Valvoline Restore and Protect 5w30 to bump up the viscosity and zinc? I believe its a 5qt capacity, but won't know till we pull it out of storage.

My counter point to this and leaning towards what @OVERKILL is saying is my FiL also has a 57 Chevy 3100 with a 265 inline 6 that he dumps whatever 5w30 or 10w30 in that's laying around, same with his 71 F100 390. Both have flat tappet lifters as well. Is it right? I don't know? But neither has had any mechanical issues besides the 390 having bad valve stem seals which we fixed last summer. That 57 is unrestored with unknown history but is completely stock 261 (which may have been swapped in because I believe that was only for the 5100's) as far as I can tell when I did a valve adjustment and resealed the side cover.

A little backstory to the 66. FiL picked it up about 4-5 years ago. Ran and drove but the transmission leaked really bad, so not drivable for any real distance. Last I remember it was from the front side of the transmission, so maybe front pump seal? Not sure yet. I plan on getting it out of storage next week to get it road worthy at least so it doesn't just sit there being unused. Afterall, keeping them moving keeps them in better mechanical condition just like us humans. It's all original, black on black long bed, 327, powerglide with factory AC and power steering. Quite a rare set of options as the 327 was first in a truck in 1966. Body is decent, I think the cab floor had a small hole in it and the bed needs a new floor. But first I want to get it road worthy. In the picture is his 49 Chevy that's mid restoration. He built a house a couple years ago and we're just now getting back on the old trucks. He's got 4 old truck and 4 kids, each kid will get one when he decides to pass them on. He is restoring each one to a nice driver, nothing over the top. Any add-ons is on the receiving kids dime, for instance I'll probably do different rear gears or an OD transmission on my own dime. I think I've put more miles on the 57 and 71 as his free mechanic than even he has. He has a 49 Chevy truck, 57 Chevy Truck, 66 Chevy Truck and the 71 Ford Truck. The 66 is going to be my wife's.

This is the best picture I have so far.
View attachment 339911

Why not VR1 10W-30 to keep the same additive strategy as the 20W-50?

 

[TacoFergie]

Why not VR1 10W-30 to keep the same additive strategy as the 20W-50?

Absolutely could. I would like to use Valvoline Restore and Protect for some cleaning power, a cleaner engine is a happy engine after all. Does it NEED it? I don't think so, but time will tell since I haven't had a good look at it in a while. But at this time before getting it in my garage to find the transmission leak I'm thinking I'll stick to strategy of 100% Valvoline Restore and Protect.

 

[userfriendly]

Valvoline Restore and Protect is a gimmick? How are you defining gimmick?

Something promoted by country fair grifters, like Lake Jr and other participant trophies with a microphone

 

[Lawnman23]

Something promoted by country fair grifters, like Lake Jr and other participant trophies with a microphone

How does that apply to the many users on here who have used it with great success for oil consumption issues?

 

[burbguy82]

My 2 cents... If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Mineral based Valvoline VR1, 1 gallon $26 at Walmart...

100% what would do

 

[JeffKeryk]

That's a mild 327; will it even see many miles? It will live just fine on 10w30. I'd run the Castrol Hot Rod oil.

 

[thetricky]

Something promoted by country fair grifters, like Lake Jr and other participant trophies with a microphone

The results speak for themselves on this site, it is the real deal.

 

[Japanese]

ZDDP is not the only anti-wear additive used as it also has plenty of moly and boron in addition to the the zinc and phosphorous compounds.

Valvoline Restore and Protect has very low zinc and phosphorous. I would use ZDDP dedicated oils like Valvoline VR1 or Castrol GTX or Mobil 1 Classic Car.

 

[RyanY]

I would do the same thing for this truck. Although, it's unlikely I'll ever tear into this engine. If something happens to this engine where I need to remove it, I'll probably put a more modern engine in with fuel injection. At least that's the idea now, who knows if or when that time would come if I'd have the same thought. I really dislike working on carburetors. If they're tuned well, they're fantastic. But I have never had luck with tuning them myself. Right now I know some older guys that are good with them, but later in life those old heads may not be around.

TBH I kinda miss the days of carburetors! Yes, FI has better performance and reliability overall, but I never really had any problems with carbs made in the 80s and later. The 60s carbs were a little more finicky and needed more love. My suggestion would be to explore a new intake/carb setup instead of a new engine. A Holley or Edelbrock 650 a mid range cam would make that thing rock! Of course, then it wouldn't be original anymore...

 

[novadude]

It depends on the application. A 220HP 327 (0.67HP per cubic inch, and that's SAE GROSS HP) is going to have a broomstick cam and weak valve springs. On top of that, the lifters and cam are already broken-in, which is the main concern when considering ZDDP levels.

Would I run Valvoline Restore and Protect in a vintage BOSS 302? not a chance. I run higher phosphorous lubes in both my HEMI's, as you know. But the valvetrain AW demands in this application, given the low power density, should be similar to higher spinning cam-over-bucket applications for which Valvoline Restore and Protect is approved, so I see this exercise as being very low risk.

These are the specs I'm finding for the stock cam:
View attachment 339907

202 duration on a 116 LCA with .390/.409 lift at the valve.

Stock springs appear to be installed at 83lbs, open pressure is 193lbs.

In comparison, a stock 351W FT cam from 1992:
View attachment 339908

221 duration, 113 LCA, .444/.452 lift at the valve.

Stock intake springs are installed at 78lbs, open pressure is 204lbs.

The old Windsor (albeit, having a superior lubrication system than the SBC), is just fine on current API oils, there are still many of them running around and it has a more aggressive cam and higher open pressures.

If we were talking a higher performance application, my opinion as to the level of risk involved would shift accordingly.

That top cam is the '929' cam that didn't come out until '67. It's commonly sold as a stock replacement. The factory '66 cam in low hp 283/327 was something like 198/198 @ 0.050 and 0.398"/0.398" lift, so very close. Spring specs look correct. I don't think you need to worry about a special oil for that cam / springs. Especially since spring loads have likely dropped even lower after 60 years.

 

[Selmorides]

My 2 cents... If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Mineral based Valvoline VR1, 1 gallon $26 at Walmart...

5 quarts for $26

 

[thetricky]

Valvoline Restore and Protect has very low zinc and phosphorous. I would use ZDDP dedicated oils like Valvoline VR1 or Castrol GTX or Mobil 1 Classic Car.

It doesn’t need to have sky-high zddp with the addition of moly and boron is what he is saying. They all work together. This MOAR ZINC deal needs to die already!

 

[Japanese]

It doesn’t need to have sky-high zddp with the addition of moly and boron is what he is saying. They all work together. This MOAR ZINC deal needs to die already!

Maybe in modern cars—yes.
I wouldn't risk 1966 engine though.

 

[OVERKILL]

Maybe in modern cars—yes.
I wouldn't risk 1966 engine though.

How do you quantify risk here? This is a stock lopo small block Chevy with a broomstick cam, not some exotic bespoke racing mill spinning to the moon. It's an architecture that remained mostly unchanged right up into the 1990's.

 

[thetricky]

Maybe in modern cars—yes.
I wouldn't risk 1966 engine though.

Overkill’s post #14 already explained why there is no issue using any modern oil in plenty of detail.

 

[Japanese]

It depends on the application. A 220HP 327 (0.67HP per cubic inch, and that's SAE GROSS HP) is going to have a broomstick cam and weak valve springs. On top of that, the lifters and cam are already broken-in, which is the main concern when considering ZDDP levels.

Overkill’s post #14 already explained why there is no issue using any modern oil in plenty of detail.

So, we're taking in account only the power per cylinder and valve spring rate, not the quality of the metals as well?
Yes, there are some modern flat-tapped engines like Toyota 2AZ-FE (2002—2011) and nobody recommends high ZDDP oil for them. They have been run on 0W-20 and 5W-30 regular API SN oils. But are those engines made with the same type of metals like the engines back in the 60s? I think metallurgy and metals used in engine building evolved long way since 1960s.