76 Lubricants Custom motor oil

Not open for further replies.
Jun 19, 2002
In my search for a dyno oil for my '69 small block chevy, I stumbled on this oil with specs: http://www.76lubricants.com/techdata/crankcase/custom9.pdf What really caught my attention was: Zinc: .138% (Does this mean 1380 ppm?) Flash point: 510F VI: 114 (excellent for a straight weight dino) This oil is a API SF/CD oil which specifically states it has no friction modifiers. Why would I want an oil with no FMs?
.138% is 1380ppm. I don't know whether FM's would make any difference to an auto owner. They would to a motorcyclist with a wet clutch possibly. Wouldn't a multi-weight be better for your '69 Chevy?
Several mono-grades are sneaking up in VI. I'd bet that an SAE 30 with a VI of 114 could very well pass a 15W or 20W cold crank and flow test. The oil could then be labeled 20W30 or 15W30, and nobody would buy it.
I'm a little dissapointed this thread is not getting much attention. I wonder how many responses I would have gotten if I found a 10w30 dino oil with the same Flash and Zn? I guess many can't get over the "straight" labling. I completely don't understand how a 15W40 can be recommended as much as it is on this board for southern climates states, but the straight weights are a big no-no. According to this Visc calculator: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/3655/VI.html This straight 30 is THINNER than Delo 400 15W-40 at ALL temps above -5C/23F. Also, it never gets below that where I live. So, now I'll ask the question: At operating temps, would you prefer a straight 30 or a 10W30 oil in your engine? Now, if only I could find this oil somewhere.
The flash point for a monograde is always going to be higher, all other things being equal. The reason is that the oil is, in this case, a 30 weight and not a 5 weight VIIed. Your question is somewhat loaded. Until I get up to operating temps I want an oil that will flow well to the top of the engine, a 5 weight. After that, I prefer approx. a 30 weight oil. Now if I were on the equator or a little above and below it where temps are pretty much constant - yes a monograde would be preferable.
That data sheet appears to be out of date. It looks like July 2001 (0701). I would expect to see SL/CF ratings on a current product. 76 Lubricants is now part of ConocoPhillips and I wonder if the formulas have changed. The only thing I don't like in that sheet is a fairly low TBN of 7.1, but that does lead to a low ash level. Pour point looks excellent for a monograde. I now use 15W-40 in my classic vehicles instead of 30 because I want the higher TBN of an HDMO for better rust and corrosion protection during periods of non-usage and I can no longer find Pennzoil LongLife in straight 30. I would prefer a straight grade beacause it may cling to parts better in storage.
Molekule, yes, the question was loaded. Here is my logic as to why I beleive this oil is acceptable for startup in my climate: This oil is thinner than the 15W-X oils all the time (where I live) and I've seen many 15W-X reccomendations on this board for climates that are similar. So I'm going on the assumption that it is as good as a 15W-X oil for startup and better than a XW-30 at operating temp. It may be flawed, but I've yet to see why. Jimbo, this is an "SF" oil and I'm sure they have no desire to update it to the "SL" specs, especially since they are marketing it for 1989 and older autos. So, I'm pretty sure the data is up to date.
Not open for further replies.