Can we Address the ZDDP issue again?

[buster]

This has come up as of lately, again, and I'd like to get some opinions from others on whether or not ZDDP in an oil such as Mobil 1, is too low? Tooslick and I have been debating whether or not Mobil 1 valvetrain wear is higher then Amsoil's due to lower ZDDP levels. From my understanding, with Mobil now using 200ppm of Boron, high levels of calcium and a bit of Moly, the high levels of ZDDP are offset. I don't use the LS1 engine as a benchmark for this comparison as we have seen that LS1's like Thicker oils.

However, oils like Redline, Synergyn, Amsoil and M1R, all have very high amounts of ZDDP. So, would Mobil 1 be better off with more ZDDP and will the new GF-4 amounts be too low and sacrifice wear? From what others have stated, there are clearly better "more expensive" additives that will replace ZDDP and therefore it won't be a problem. Any guesses? Thanks in advance.

I currently have M1 5w-30 in my car with 1,400 miles on it. I took a qt of 15w-50 and mixed it in with the 1qt remaining in the 5qt jug so P should be higher. This will be my top up oil.

[ February 14, 2004, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[JohnBrowning]

Terry has comented on M1 needing more barrier additives! He see's thousands of UOA each year and keeps trac of various lubricantes and their formulation. I think the combination of barrier additives and solvency are key! This is why I think M1 15W50 and LC or M1R adn LC will prove to be potent combinations!!

A lot of the other additives are more costly and I think we are going to see less of them because of this. I think that over all we will see a reduction in barrier additive protection. This will not affect those people with roller cams or OHC engines that much. It will affect older engines a lot though!

The whole ZDDP issue being harmful to Cat/Converter is only issue if you have a volitile oil! I would rather they decrease the allowable volitility then reduce the barrier additives!

Their are other things like borate esters, calcium, large amounts of moly like redline uses, maybe some form of tungsten etc.... ZDDP is time tested and cheap!

We will see how inportant ZDDP is when we see some UOA of the new M1R. If I test it I will probably add LC to it. I also think that when I get around to doing my 15W50 and LC run we will see it as well!

My thought are that if you start with a decent base stock you must have solvency either naturaly or additive, you must have plenty of amines and plenty of barrier additives. If you do not have enough amines or solvency all the barrier additives in world will not do much! I have learned this from Terry, Mola and TS! On the hydrodynamic side of things I like to see the minium HTHS+1 for your application! So if 2.6 is the minimum I would like to see 3.6! Obviously I do not mind haveing more then that if I can find somethng that is stabil and works in my ambient temps!

 

[buster]

I agree, but what about Amsoil? No Moly, hardly any Boron and average calcium levels. I assume then that Redline is the superior built oil based on what you have said.

Another thing I wanted to add was Mobil 1 0w-20 is putting up some of the best numbers among all oils. Bearing wear and Iron wear have been phenomenal. Same amount of ZDDP but I believe they are using something else in this oil.

[ February 14, 2004, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[JohnBrowning]

Well buster I think amsoil is useing various esters to mitigate their lack of a complex organo metallic barrier additive system. THe barrier add they do use is in large amounts. They have also recently started adding Boron.

GC uses low doses of moly and zddp and also generates low wear in most cases that we have seen. So if we can keep the parts from touching do we need the extra barrier additives? How much barrier additive do we need?

The problem I see is that we can not see solvency or amines in UOA. If these are not their then the additives are practicly worthless! Even though GC has low levels of ZDDP and Moly it might have large amounts of Amines and lots of solvency! Then their is the varios borate esters and the ester base stocks? Their is so much that we can not see in UOA that itis hard to judge soly on UOA and VOA in advance what is going to work well in a vechile!

I have often considered trying Pentro 90 in my oil to increse both solvency and amines! If I had the ability to truly see what was going on chemicly I would try it! I can not see playing chemist though when I can add proven products like Lube Control and 132 to M1, Schaffers or Redline to get what I want!

 

[TooSlick]

Actually, I'm just providing documented facts based on twenty five years of research and practical experience w/ synlubes. With all due respect, it's really not a debate.

By the way, ZDDP is also a high effective anti-oxidant. The other reason the Mobil 1R is loaded up with ZDDP is to keep it from excessively thickening before the end of a long race. If your 30wt oil thickens up to a 50wt, it will cost you significant horsepower at high rpms and you lose the benefit of the 0w-30.

The Delvac 1, synthetic diesel oil contains an optimum level of ZDDP, but Mobil 1 does not. The Mobil 1, Motorcycle oils also contain lots more ZDDP than their automotive oils, and the Mobil 1, 15w-50 contains much more - about 1100 ppm of P and 1500 ppm of Zn.

Levels of ZDDP in API licensed, xw-20 and xw-30 grades are restricted by the API. I don't know of anybody who thinks that's desirable ....

Ted

 

[buster]

Ted, are the current levels of P for ASL/ATM above 1,000 ppm? I know we have seen some variations. Also, are they using amines in the base stocks and esters?

Mobil is using the concentrated calcium dispersant, and the secondary AW adds of Boron and MoDTC, whereas Amsoil only has one secondary AW, the boron, which is in very small amounts.

According to Mobil, newer additives are replacing ZDDP and are better performers. I think cost is a huge issue here. I have no doubt as to the benefit of ZDDP, but I'm not sure wear is always sacrificed by lowered amounts. However, I can't argue as to why then M1R, S2k, RL etc. all use higher amounts, which conflicts with what I'm saying.

If the proof is in the UOA, then M1 levels of ZDDP are just fine. Thats how I see so far.

[ February 15, 2004, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[TooSlick]

Higher levels of ZDDP don't necessarily provide better wear protection, since the thickness of the AW layer formed is the same. They do provide improved wear protection over longer drain intervals, since the ZDDP is rendered inactive through use. Higher levels of ZDDP also prevent excessive oxidative thickening over extended drain intervals, as shown in the "TFOUT" - thin film, oxidation uptake test.

If you are using normal or even mildly extended drain intervals, then lower levels of ZDDP really don't matter that much. If you run drain intervals > 10,000 miles, I do think they matter and that's really all I'm concerned about. The Amsoil, XL-7500 Series oils contain low levels of ZDDP comparable to Mobil 1, but they are only intended for 7500 mile drains ....

Ted

 

[buster]

quote:

---

If you are using normal or even mildly extended drain intervals, then lower levels of ZDDP really don't matter that much. If you run drain intervals > 10,000 miles, I do think they matter and that's really all I'm concerned about. The Amsoil, XL-7500 Series oils contain low levels of ZDDP comparable to Mobil 1, but they are only intended for 7500 mile drains ....

---

Ahhh...got it. That makes sense now. Thanks for clearing that up. I would agree then that for 10k + mile drains, Amsoil would be the way to go, hence the higher levels of ZDDP.

 

[JohnBrowning]

I do not know? I know that Amsoil has in the past always performed well even with their super simple additive package. In the absence of complex organo metalic additive package what else can explain it. Surely it has to be in the base stocks like esters? The amines and solvency just make good sense to me. If you wanted a technical explanation then Mola is the man to talk to.

Your premium G I saturated base stocks have a lot of natuarl solvency and are a natural anti-oxident. Schaffers uses a premium G I base stock that is 80% saturated. Most oils do not use premium G I stock and the GII and G III stocks used are usualy not the premium types either. Not all G I, II and III stocks are of the same quality! TO make up for this we can add some LC to give solvency and anti-oxidants back to the oil. This helps to keep the polymers that would normaly form sludge pre-cursor from sticking together by depolerizeing them!

The amines make the oil very slipper I almost like to think of it like reduceing the surface tension of watter to make it a better wetting agent! THe amines also allow the additives to function better or interact with the friction serfaces. The way I understand it the barrier additives would rather stick to each other then to the friction surfaces especialy when hot. The amines help prevent this. I hope I am getting all of this right. Ask Molakule if I am right on or way off? I do not want to mislead anyone on purpose!!

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:

GC uses low doses of moly and zddp and also generates low wear in most cases that we have seen.

---

GC 0w30 uses no moly at all.

Here is my GC VOA:

Boron-5.2
Moly-0.1
Magnesium-144
Calcium-3544
Phosphorus-896
Zinc-1116

 

[TooSlick]

I happen to think that VOA's are completely worthless in trying to determine how an oil will perform in service and I don't understand why folks do them at all. All the useful information on engine oils is available on the manufacturers spec sheets. Most important of these are what OEM specs the formulation meets. If its ACEA A3/B4 rated, and also meets the European OEM specs, that's the best stuff on the market, regardless of who makes it ....

The key thing to look for is if it meets or exceeds the ACEA "B4" or "B5" or CI-4 specs and not just the "A3" or "A5" specs. Meeting the requirements of modern passenger car and light truck diesel engines requires a much better additive chemistry and a high quality basestock.

For example, the new Castrol Syntec 5w-30/10w-30 is A5 rated, but it's not also B5 rated like Mobil 1. In fact, it's only B1 rated since it is severely lacking in detergency ....

Tooslick
Dixie Synthetics

[ February 15, 2004, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: TooSlick ]

 

[Motorbike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
I happen to think that VOA's are completely worthless in trying to determine how an oil will perform in service and I don't understand why folks do them at all.

---

That comment is an interesting one to say the least especially since you yourself have sent in and posted these 3 new oil analysis and ensueing comments by you in these threads .

web pageRedline 15-w-40

Synergyn 0w020

Castrol 5w-40

Buster ,

To refresh your memory here's the link that has two 30wt Amsoil VOA's in one thread . The first one sent in by Molakule had 930ppm of zinc from one year ago . The latest had 830ppm of zinc .

Two VOA's on current 30wt Amsoil

Remember most times these mail order oils are purchased in larger quantities and not only does it take time to accumulate the miles to perform UOA's , it takes time to use up the supply and during that time new forumulations are made .

Members might keep that in mind when trying to compare these oils and their additive packs directly since Mobil and other oils are usually bought in only enough quantity to complete one oil change and are indicitive of the most current formulations .

[ February 15, 2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Motorbike ]

 

[haley10]

Thanks for that tidbit TooSlick. I recently changed from Syntec to M1. Guess the B5-02 on M1 means better detergency??

 

[buster]

Tooslick, Amsoil told me that almost everything is shown through a VOA. VOA's are clearly beneficial but so are UOA's and specs. If Amsoil added Moly tomorrow, I'm sure Amsoil sales people would be jumping up and down.

 

[Patman]

Ted, the main reason I did the VOA on my GC 0w30 was to get a starting point for many of the key values, such as TBN, viscosity, and also because I wanted to know if my batch of it still showed 9ppm of iron like GMan's did.

VOAs might not be totally useful in telling us how an oil performs but it gives us a decent idea, and helps us interpret our UOAs better if we have the starting values of the fresh oil.

 

[Quick_lude]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Motorbike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
I happen to think that VOA's are completely worthless in trying to determine how an oil will perform in service and I don't understand why folks do them at all.

---

That comment is an interesting one to say the least especially since you yourself have sent in and posted these 3 new oil analysis and ensueing comments by you in these threads .

web pageRedline 15-w-40

Synergyn 0w020

Castrol 5w-40

---

Owned!

 

[haley10]

Where do I find the A3/5 and B3/5 requirements??

What does it mean?? I'm still retarded to GM4718-M and SL.

 

[TooSlick]

Haley10,

Yes, Mobil 1 has far better detergency and is much more resistant to oxidation ....


Quick Lude,

I tested the Synergyn because I was not familar with the formulation and Synergyn does not provide TBN data. Basically, I wanted to know how long I could run the stuff safely .... I tested the VW 505.01 formulation to determine if Amsoil makes a formulation that would be suitable for this application. I was also interested to see if they were doing some trick stuff in terms of additive chemistry, since VW 505.01 data is very hard to come by. IMHO, the VW 505.01 requirement is a complete customer ripoff - how's that for honesty?

Generally speaking however, VOA's are pretty worthless and I'd certainly stand by that statement.

Ted

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

From my understanding, with Mobil now using 200ppm of Boron, high levels of
calcium and a bit of Moly, the high levels of ZDDP are offset.

---

That is correct.

As for ZDDP, it become less active over time at lower concentrations, but at higher concentrations, it continues to protect.

You have to remember, zddp is only ONE of the many AW additives available.

I have to agree with Patman regarding VOA's, they are not worthless because they provide a baseline. They are and were never not meant to reveal every additive secret in the formulation, but how else can you determine tbn, tan, starting viscosity, etc?

[ February 16, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]