With regard to the flat tappet engines that ruined cams during break in, did it use up all the zinc or was it simply a defect or assembly issue? Don't know many guys that had it happened called it an error on their part of putting it together.
Castrol 10w40 4t
- Thread starter JPowell490
- Start date
- Status
Break in happens with in a few hundred miles so using up all Zinc can be ruled out... that leaves an error in assembly...
Roush motors... Error in assembly? Read this excerpt...
"These formulation changes had a huge effect on the aftermarket that rippled through the racing community, and Brothers had firsthand experience with it. "Many years ago I had the problem with the engines from Roush. We couldn't even get an engine off the dyno without failing a cam," says Brothers. "We kept beating ourselves up thinking we didn't know how to make a cam anymore. We changed tapers, we changed lifters, we changed everything we knew how to change on the cam looking for the solution."
Brothers sort of laughs about the incident now, but it was a lot of work back then.
"We went through all kinds of things throughout this process of trying to find out what was wrong, scribing a little line on the lifter bores to squirt a little oil down there, drilling a hole in the bottom of the lifter, putting a spray bar in there to spray oil directly on the cam. Well, that was when Roush was sponsored by Valvoline, and we found out that somebody in the Valvoline labs changed something in the oil. As it turned out, as long as we had the correct oil it was fine. You know we just didn't have the right lubricant package in the oil." Once Brothers and Roush got the manufacturer to put the ZDDP back in the oil, the problem went away."
Good discussion, I'm going to rest my case on the fact that more zinc is good for flat tappets. and that Blackstone and the data supporting otherwise isn't addressing flat tappets specifically.
"These formulation changes had a huge effect on the aftermarket that rippled through the racing community, and Brothers had firsthand experience with it. "Many years ago I had the problem with the engines from Roush. We couldn't even get an engine off the dyno without failing a cam," says Brothers. "We kept beating ourselves up thinking we didn't know how to make a cam anymore. We changed tapers, we changed lifters, we changed everything we knew how to change on the cam looking for the solution."
Brothers sort of laughs about the incident now, but it was a lot of work back then.
"We went through all kinds of things throughout this process of trying to find out what was wrong, scribing a little line on the lifter bores to squirt a little oil down there, drilling a hole in the bottom of the lifter, putting a spray bar in there to spray oil directly on the cam. Well, that was when Roush was sponsored by Valvoline, and we found out that somebody in the Valvoline labs changed something in the oil. As it turned out, as long as we had the correct oil it was fine. You know we just didn't have the right lubricant package in the oil." Once Brothers and Roush got the manufacturer to put the ZDDP back in the oil, the problem went away."
Good discussion, I'm going to rest my case on the fact that more zinc is good for flat tappets. and that Blackstone and the data supporting otherwise isn't addressing flat tappets specifically.
Originally Posted by Bonz
Roush motors... Error in assembly?.
Roush??? mercy Bonz I thought you were talking about these guys who race flat tappets...
."An oval track dirt racer (his class is extremely competitive, so he
asked that his name be left out) on the SpeedTalk Forum runs a 7200
rpm, solid flat tappet, 358ci Small Block Chevy motor, with valve
spring pressures of about 160 on the seat and 400 open, that are
shimmed to .060" from coil bind. The rules and the combination of
parts, were causing him to experience repeated cam failures while
using high zinc, semi-synthetic 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor
oil. Lab Report Data from testing performed by Professional Lab, "ALS
Tribology" in Sparks, Nevada, showed that this oil contains 1557 ppm
zinc, 1651 ppm phosphorus, and 3 ppm moly. In spite of this being a
high zinc oil, that most folks would "assume" provides excellent wear
protection, he experienced wiped lobe cam failure about every 22 to 25
races."
"A race consists of one 8 lap (a lap is typically 3/8 mile) heat race
and one 20 lap feature race, plus any caution laps. If you add it all
up, 25 races only total about 281 miles at the point of cam failure.
So, that is a perfect example of what I've been saying all along about
high zinc levels being absolutely NO GUARANTEE of adequate wear
protection."
Roush motors... Error in assembly?.
Roush??? mercy Bonz I thought you were talking about these guys who race flat tappets...
."An oval track dirt racer (his class is extremely competitive, so he
asked that his name be left out) on the SpeedTalk Forum runs a 7200
rpm, solid flat tappet, 358ci Small Block Chevy motor, with valve
spring pressures of about 160 on the seat and 400 open, that are
shimmed to .060" from coil bind. The rules and the combination of
parts, were causing him to experience repeated cam failures while
using high zinc, semi-synthetic 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor
oil. Lab Report Data from testing performed by Professional Lab, "ALS
Tribology" in Sparks, Nevada, showed that this oil contains 1557 ppm
zinc, 1651 ppm phosphorus, and 3 ppm moly. In spite of this being a
high zinc oil, that most folks would "assume" provides excellent wear
protection, he experienced wiped lobe cam failure about every 22 to 25
races."
"A race consists of one 8 lap (a lap is typically 3/8 mile) heat race
and one 20 lap feature race, plus any caution laps. If you add it all
up, 25 races only total about 281 miles at the point of cam failure.
So, that is a perfect example of what I've been saying all along about
high zinc levels being absolutely NO GUARANTEE of adequate wear
protection."
Last edited:
Yeah we are both finding good examples!
Originally Posted by Bonz
Yeah we are both finding good examples!
Yes we are Bonz... I think we are finding one of the most common
misunderstanding about motor oil is that higher zinc levels provide
better wear protection. That has been repeated over and over again so
many times over the years, that owners just assume it is correct. But
current facts don't support that assumption anymore...
Quote 540Rat
So, modern low zinc oils CAN BE USED SAFELY with flat tappet cam
setups, even in engines with radical cams and high spring pressures.
Simply choose from the higher ranked oils on the list at the end of
this write-up, and you'll be good to go. I know people who've been
using modern low zinc oils in High Performance flat tappet set-ups for
a long time, and they've had no issue at all.
Zinc is used/sacrificed in very small quantities at time, so the total
amount present in your oil does not change how much wear protection
the oil provides, as long as you don't run out of zinc. "Lab Testing"
and "Wear Testing" analysis proves/confirms that more zinc provides
LONGER wear protection, NOT MORE wear protection.
Zinc is used as an extreme pressure, anti-wear additive. But, zinc
"DOES NOT" build-up over time like some type of plating process. For
those who have actually taken an engine apart that has been running
high zinc oil, you know that you don't find a build-up of zinc that
looks like some sort of coating or sludge build-up. Zinc does NOT work
that way. And zinc is not even a lubricant until heat and load are
applied. Zinc is only used when there is actual metal to metal contact
in the engine. At that point zinc must react with the heat and load to
create the sacrificial film that allows it to protect flat-tappet
camshafts and other highly loaded engine parts.
More from Flat Tappet know it alls...
1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard,
whose own test data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing,
has concluded that more zinc in motor oil can be damaging, more zinc
does NOT provide todayÂ’s best wear protection, and that using zinc as
the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.
2. The GM Oil Report titled, “Oil Myths from GM Techlink”, concluded
that high levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT
provide more wear protection.
3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, “More
than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil”, concluded that more
zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer
wear protection.
4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company: There is such a thing as too
much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a
detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive
performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will
“tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP
effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection.
Only so much is utilized. We donÂ’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP.
Yeah we are both finding good examples!
Yes we are Bonz... I think we are finding one of the most common
misunderstanding about motor oil is that higher zinc levels provide
better wear protection. That has been repeated over and over again so
many times over the years, that owners just assume it is correct. But
current facts don't support that assumption anymore...
Quote 540Rat
So, modern low zinc oils CAN BE USED SAFELY with flat tappet cam
setups, even in engines with radical cams and high spring pressures.
Simply choose from the higher ranked oils on the list at the end of
this write-up, and you'll be good to go. I know people who've been
using modern low zinc oils in High Performance flat tappet set-ups for
a long time, and they've had no issue at all.
Zinc is used/sacrificed in very small quantities at time, so the total
amount present in your oil does not change how much wear protection
the oil provides, as long as you don't run out of zinc. "Lab Testing"
and "Wear Testing" analysis proves/confirms that more zinc provides
LONGER wear protection, NOT MORE wear protection.
Zinc is used as an extreme pressure, anti-wear additive. But, zinc
"DOES NOT" build-up over time like some type of plating process. For
those who have actually taken an engine apart that has been running
high zinc oil, you know that you don't find a build-up of zinc that
looks like some sort of coating or sludge build-up. Zinc does NOT work
that way. And zinc is not even a lubricant until heat and load are
applied. Zinc is only used when there is actual metal to metal contact
in the engine. At that point zinc must react with the heat and load to
create the sacrificial film that allows it to protect flat-tappet
camshafts and other highly loaded engine parts.
More from Flat Tappet know it alls...
1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard,
whose own test data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing,
has concluded that more zinc in motor oil can be damaging, more zinc
does NOT provide todayÂ’s best wear protection, and that using zinc as
the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.
2. The GM Oil Report titled, “Oil Myths from GM Techlink”, concluded
that high levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT
provide more wear protection.
3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, “More
than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil”, concluded that more
zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer
wear protection.
4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company: There is such a thing as too
much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a
detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive
performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will
“tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP
effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection.
Only so much is utilized. We donÂ’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP.
Last edited:
Yeah I totally agree and have known that too much zinc is a bad thing because of what Brad Penn oils said. I think that's where I read it first when my dad was trying different oils in his classic Corvair and was using up a case of Brad Penn.
He ended up running Amsoil oil 10w30 Z-Rod with great results as the oil didn't cook off and he didn't have to add oil because it was evaporating.
I've asked this a few times but no one really answers. Boron is being added in higher and higher amounts. There must be a benefit to the anti-wear properties, along the lines of moly but not needed in as high of concentration to do the same work.
He ended up running Amsoil oil 10w30 Z-Rod with great results as the oil didn't cook off and he didn't have to add oil because it was evaporating.
I've asked this a few times but no one really answers. Boron is being added in higher and higher amounts. There must be a benefit to the anti-wear properties, along the lines of moly but not needed in as high of concentration to do the same work.
so after all this above from you experts, What's the verdict on the Castrol 4T 10w40? Canadian Tire has it $7.99 a liter.
No verdict. LOL
I use the Castrol ActEvo part synthetic in my motorcycles. They run and shift great. No problems.
The Castrol Full synthetic is supposed to be even better than the ActEvo. Go ahead and use it.
I believe the general consensus of the conventional (non-synthetic) Castrol 4T oil is that it is sub-par and not recommended.
I saw Castrol GTX 10w40 at the Canadian Tire store, is that the Castrol Full synthetic?
just looked and the store web site says the Castrol GTX 10w40 is Conventional oil
There is a conventional oil and then there is a 4T full synthetic.
Castrol Power 1 is the full synthetic 4T oil
Castrol ActEvo is the part synthetic 4T oil
Castrol GO! is the conventional 4T oil
Motorcycle oils usually have the 4T designation on the bottle. Also, somewhere in the specs listed, will have JASO MA or MA2 listed on the bottle for wet clutch compatibility.
Link to Castrol showing their motorcycle oils (in the United States). I just typed "motorcycle oil" in the search bar on their website.
https://www.castrol.com/en_us/unite...rcycle-engine-oils/motorcycle-oil-brands.html
Yes, some people run car, truck or diesel oil in their motorcycles. I do not, so I don't have an opinion on which one of those is best.
Castrol ActEvo is the part synthetic 4T oil
Castrol GO! is the conventional 4T oil
Motorcycle oils usually have the 4T designation on the bottle. Also, somewhere in the specs listed, will have JASO MA or MA2 listed on the bottle for wet clutch compatibility.
Link to Castrol showing their motorcycle oils (in the United States). I just typed "motorcycle oil" in the search bar on their website.
https://www.castrol.com/en_us/unite...rcycle-engine-oils/motorcycle-oil-brands.html
Yes, some people run car, truck or diesel oil in their motorcycles. I do not, so I don't have an opinion on which one of those is best.
Canadian Tire store doesn't have the Castrol Power 1 but they do sell the Castrol ActEvo part synthetic 10w40, I do want to have a 10w40 for my '05 Kawasaki Vulcan 800 water cooled wet sump motorcycle and searching for which 10w40 to get.
I've used the Valvoline 10W-40 conventional 4-stroke motorcycle oil in a couple different bikes and it works well. Not sure it's available in Canada, but Walmart sells it here in the US.
The Power 1 has a much lower Noack compared to the ActEvo and Go! formulas.
https://msdspds.castrol.com/msdspds...=Full&spu=Lubricants&unrestrictedmb=No&cols=0
You said in another post you ordered a case of Petro Canada Duron 10w40... did you change your mind again?
I keep changing my mind about which 10w40 to get, I can't get Mobil 1 Racing 4T 10w40 here, and I can't find Castrol Power1 10w40 Synthetic either, I can get Castrol GTX 10w40 Conventional and Amsoil 10w40 Metric Motorcycle Synthetic, and Petro Canada Duron-E 10w40 Synthetic, I have Rotella T6 5w40 on hand and Rotella T4 15w40 on hand
I was wanting to have a synthetic 10w40
- Status