Cat damage

427Z06 · Sep 29, 2006

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Research is fine and dandy but were are all these vechiles with pluged up Cat's

Click to expand...

The problem is Cats that loose their ability to perform the function for which they're designed through phosphorus poisioning.

And if you don't believe it happens on a regular basis, just Google "Catalytic Converters".

Here's a recent example on a well maintained car.

Click to expand...

427, I don't see any reference to the car being well maintained. The miles put on the car were run up quickly, according to the post, but no maintenance records were divulged. Also, the check engine light was on for some time. Being OBD-II, the codes would indicate which O2 sensor failed, pre or post cat, but the post doesn't indicate. Cats do not fare well or long with excess, unburnt fuel passing through them from misfires, or tired O2 sensors that are slow to switch to lean.. they overheat, ruining the precious metals inside. Granted, all this is speculation, but one fact is clear from the report.. the car apparently used 1/2 quart of oil in it's 3831 miles.. where is the evidence that indicates the oil killed the cat?

You're right, my bad. I read through it quickly and missed the bad 02 sensor part. The two codes point to a shot catalytic converter & oxygen sensor, which I think shows up plainly in the report The used oil analysis looks good considering, so I don't think the car has been abused by her father, the original owner.

Just the same, Cats do degrade (not plug-up), such that emissions tests can't be passed. Talk to someone who does comprehensive emissions tests all day long.

But hey, if you don't care about polluting the environment more than you have to, and want to roll the dice that your vehicle will always pass emissions, don't let me stop you from using HDEO with both a bottle VSOT and a bottle of SLOB every 3K miles. However, to tell every Joe that happens by that there is no risk to his Cat if he loads up his engine with Cat poisoning additives is a bit irresponsible, IMHO.

toocrazy2yoo · Sep 29, 2006

427 is this recent? Googling the heck out of the issue the last couple of days, there's a bit of opinion this is an issue starting with about the 2005 model year owing to the thin-layered catalyst coatings. Thin layered, that is, to save money. Is that why, now that these cats are out long enough to show their lack of durability, that the ZDDP in the oil is becoming an issue for the end user? Surely the auto manufacturers were aware when they requested low-additive oils under SM, yes? No?

It seems to be a new phenom, to say the least. With all the reading on the subject, mostly here, but elsewhere, too, I'm under no illusions that my 4-banger roller-cammed econobox needs ZDDP to the detriment of my catalyst, so this doesn't really affect me much.

I'd still like to have the calcium and moly though, assuming THOSE aren't detrimental pollutants..

JohnBrowning · Sep 30, 2006

427Z06, You are correct I was just trying to stir the pot a little bit. I was mostly trying to push your buttons!!! I was just in a silly mode!!! I have to admit I am suprised you feel for it and replied!!! I thought for sure I was being a bit too obvious.

JohnBrowning · Sep 30, 2006

Modern cat's are usualy ceramic with exotic metals applied to the cermaic substrate. The usual cause for failure for these is cracking of the substrate.The big issue with the cracking is really on vechiles with no EGR that relie of cam phaseing for this function. Parts of the ceramic substrate can be pulled back into the engine dureing EGR operation even with no "real" EGR valve.The ceramics then destroy the cylinder walls. To say I am not a big fan of this design would be putting it mildly! Pladium,Iridium,Platinum etc... are all expensive and it ia all about saveing money!!!!

427Z06 · Sep 30, 2006

Quote:

427Z06, You are correct I was just trying to stir the pot a little bit. I was mostly trying to push your buttons!!! I was just in a silly mode!!! I have to admit I am suprised you feel for it and replied!!! I thought for sure I was being a bit too obvious.

Oh...so your just trolling.

427Z06 · Sep 30, 2006

toocrazy2yoo, here's some credible info, if you're interested. Unless, of course, you want to listen the Trolls in this thread.

Here's the emission standards manufacturers had to meet over the years.(Scroll down to see the chart)

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16816

Here's the limits vehicles have to pass to meet emissions test.(Scroll down to IM240 CUTPOINTS)

http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/vim/guide/inspection_program_elements.html#exhaust

Notice, for example, that 1996 and newer cars only have to meet the emission standards of a 1980's vehicle. Goes to show how much slack is built into the test. So when someone says, "I use such and such, and I passed an emissions test" they really aren't saying much at all.

Manufacturers on the other hand, have to prove to the EPA that the emissions your vehicle emits meets the standards for a warranty period (which I believe is 80,000miles/8years currently).

Here's another study. Haven't read it yet, but it looks to provide some insight.

http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/mobile/projektit/m2t9902/laurikko -fisita_ f2000h118.pdf

toocrazy2yoo · Sep 30, 2006

Well, 427, I dunno trolls from bowls, but I'm reading..

Thanks!

427Z06 · Oct 1, 2006

Here's another one for you, toocrazy2yoo:

http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id=47enxdvt8ym53den

Phosphorus is present in engine oils in the form of the antiwear and antioxidation additive zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP). Its effects on wear and friction were studied at different temperatures using a high-frequency reciprocating rig (HFRR). The electrically insulating tribofilm formation was measured using an electrical contact resistance (ECR) technique. The wear and friction performance of a fully formulated fresh oil containing 0.05 wt%phosphorus was compared with the corresponding used oil drained from a vehicle. The results show that the wear performance of fresh oils having phosphorus concentration from 0.02 to 0.1 wt% is very similar. Further reduction of phosphorus concentration below 0.02 wt% leads to high wear. The coefficient of friction increases with increased phosphorus concentration at temperatures above 80°C but decreases with increased phosphorus concentration at temperatures below 80°C. The used oil and the fresh 0 wt% phosphorus oil running on the original fresh steel surface exhibit higher wear than when both oils were evaluated on a previously formed film from a fresh oil containing 0.05 wt%phosphorus.

Note that all SM/GF-4 oils have a minimum of 0.06 wt% phosphorus, providing a significant safety margin.

brianl703 · Oct 1, 2006

Maybe that's what the State of Illinois does, but I can assure you that in Virginia the cutpoints are lower every time I take the 1988 Mustang in for an emissions test. They apparently want older cars off the road and lowering the cutpoints is one way to do it.

427Z06 · Oct 1, 2006

I believe you Brian...things are a changing and it's time consuming to keep up. Every state and many times cites/counties within any state vary quite a bit.

Even diesels are now being subjected to the same type of laws and thus we have the low SAPS oils coming onto the market.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.php?Number=730440

toocrazy2yoo · Oct 1, 2006

Ok, I buy into all this..Meanwhile there are..."trolls" as you put it, mis-informed, ignorant, or simply want what they want, that are going to pour in the VSOT, SLOB, and CD2 no matter the effect on their catalysts and environment.

In order to put their hearts to rest, what's a substitute for the ZDDP? Does Moly trash the cat? Or just ZDDP? Folks are addicts, creatures of habit. You have to offer them something, as they're convinced the oil has been compromised. Clearly these substances aren't being banned, so how to you set them at ease? What's a harmless additive to boost the anti-wear properties of GF4/SM rated oil?

427Z06 · Oct 1, 2006

Quote:

What's a harmless additive to boost the anti-wear properties of GF4/SM rated oil?

Unless you have a pushrod flat-tappet aftermarket high performance valvetrain, none are needed.

Look at one of the tests a GF-4/SM oil has to pass:

http://www.swri.org/4org/d08/GasTests/IIIGtest/default.htm

Clearly much more severe than anything your engine is ever likely to see, and it's performed on an engine that DOES have pushrods and flat-tappets. If GF-4/SM oil passes this test without any additives, I highly doubt you need any.

BrianWC · Oct 2, 2006

Quote:

Ok, I buy into all this..Meanwhile there are..."trolls" as you put it, mis-informed, ignorant, or simply want what they want, that are going to pour in the VSOT, SLOB, and CD2 no matter the effect on their catalysts and environment.

In order to put their hearts to rest, what's a substitute for the ZDDP? Does Moly trash the cat? Or just ZDDP? Folks are addicts, creatures of habit. You have to offer them something, as they're convinced the oil has been compromised. Clearly these substances aren't being banned, so how to you set them at ease? What's a harmless additive to boost the anti-wear properties of GF4/SM rated oil?

Does this mean you no longer what to trade your Pennzoil Platinum for SLOB?

Quote:

Hey SW, or TallPaul!

Wanna trade some Pennzoil Platinum for some of that SLOB?

SLOB is fun for the whole family! I'm down to two bottles, Lots doesn't carry it anymore, and they're sold out. I gotta severe jones on for some SLOB. Just OCI'd with Pennzoil Conventional 5w20. Saving my last two bottles of SLOB for the 0W30 GC wintertime 10K OCI I'm gonna put on this car in mid-October.

Back to VSOT I guess.

toocrazy2yoo · Oct 2, 2006

Yes, actually, it does. I added no SLOB to my last OCI of 5W20 SM Pennzoil Conventional. Been reading of this for a month or two, anyway.

How did you EVEN remember that, Brian?

toocrazy2yoo · Oct 2, 2006

Besides, that, the GC I'm gonna do this winter HAS a bunch of zinc in it anyway, under the SL grade, yes?

No more adds for me, I'm convinced.

Hey Brian, how far back did that post go, anyway?

brianl703 · Oct 2, 2006

I save my emissions inspection results

Actually there is a website that the Virginia DEQ runs where you can enter a VIN and see the emissions test results dating back to 1998 or so..

BrianWC · Oct 2, 2006

Quote:

Besides, that, the GC I'm gonna do this winter HAS a bunch of zinc in it anyway, under the SL grade, yes?

No more adds for me, I'm convinced.

Hey Brian, how far back did that post go, anyway?

Couple weeks or so, I think. I thought I remembered you wanting SLOB and was confused. I'm not buying SLOB for antifriction properties. I was thinking of slowing my poor saab's oil from breaking down so fast.

toocrazy2yoo · Oct 2, 2006

Dang..Well, they quit selling the stuff at the Lots where I am, but then I decided with all the re-edgemication on the subject not to bother any more.

My roller-skate Hyundai doesn't need it anymore if it ever did..

toocrazy2yoo · Oct 2, 2006

So 427!

From the testing, did they record results on how individual oils performed? Or did they just do a pass/fail? Would we have expected SL-rated oils to pass these tests?

427Z06 · Oct 2, 2006

Quote:

So 427!

From the testing, did they record results on how individual oils performed? Or did they just do a pass/fail? Would we have expected SL-rated oils to pass these tests?

Results were recorded during the developement of the SM/GF-4 specs. Some SL oils passed, some didn't.

Schaeffer's is the only one I'm aware of that publishes their test results.

See an example here, last page: http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/701.pdf

Cat damage

Similar threads