Can someone tell which of the two; Zinc or Phosphorus is doing most of the protecting? I have come across one synthetic "group III oil" 15W-50 that has 1071ppm Zinc & 1631ppm Phosphorus. Why so much Phosphorus compared to the Zinc?
Correct zinc and Phosporus levels for muscle cars
- Thread starter cmayna
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: j454
Can someone tell which of the two; Zinc or Phosphorus is doing most of the protecting? I have come across one synthetic "group III oil" 15W-50 that has 1071ppm Zinc & 1631ppm Phosphorus. Why so much Phosphorus compared to the Zinc?
In simple terms, the P does the protecting - but as delivered in ZDDP. ZDDP is a low cost, effective molecule - it does the job pretty well at boundary surfaces. It's not like you can dump in phosporic acid salts of any flavor and get the same protection. That said there are some P bearing ester oils.
Those numbers sound like erroneous VOA readings IMHO. UNLESS the blender is using a different chemistry, of course. What oil?
Can someone tell which of the two; Zinc or Phosphorus is doing most of the protecting? I have come across one synthetic "group III oil" 15W-50 that has 1071ppm Zinc & 1631ppm Phosphorus. Why so much Phosphorus compared to the Zinc?
In simple terms, the P does the protecting - but as delivered in ZDDP. ZDDP is a low cost, effective molecule - it does the job pretty well at boundary surfaces. It's not like you can dump in phosporic acid salts of any flavor and get the same protection. That said there are some P bearing ester oils.
Those numbers sound like erroneous VOA readings IMHO. UNLESS the blender is using a different chemistry, of course. What oil?
Originally Posted By: Jaymus
I could have swore someone said Valvoline VR-1 was a 3000 mile oil because of the low detergents. Which, is fine, but the price is too high if that is true. Hard to beat HDEO's.
I stand corrected. Just called Valvoline. VR-1 Does have lower calcium additive and they will not, absolutely will not back up more than a 3000 mile OCI for it, whereas the Premium Conventional and other PCMOs they recommend 3000 mile, but will back up any manufacturers recommended OCI, so these oils can go 5000 or whatever. The reason for less calcium in VR1 he said was they put more friction modifier for horsepower.
I could have swore someone said Valvoline VR-1 was a 3000 mile oil because of the low detergents. Which, is fine, but the price is too high if that is true. Hard to beat HDEO's.
I stand corrected. Just called Valvoline. VR-1 Does have lower calcium additive and they will not, absolutely will not back up more than a 3000 mile OCI for it, whereas the Premium Conventional and other PCMOs they recommend 3000 mile, but will back up any manufacturers recommended OCI, so these oils can go 5000 or whatever. The reason for less calcium in VR1 he said was they put more friction modifier for horsepower.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: j454
Can someone tell which of the two; Zinc or Phosphorus is doing most of the protecting? I have come across one synthetic "group III oil" 15W-50 that has 1071ppm Zinc & 1631ppm Phosphorus. Why so much Phosphorus compared to the Zinc?
In simple terms, the P does the protecting - but as delivered in ZDDP. ZDDP is a low cost, effective molecule - it does the job pretty well at boundary surfaces. It's not like you can dump in phosporic acid salts of any flavor and get the same protection. That said there are some P bearing ester oils.
Those numbers sound like erroneous VOA readings IMHO. UNLESS the blender is using a different chemistry, of course. What oil?
The oil is: BENZ OIL ; Unifilm Motor Oil 15W-50 groupIII
And yes that is a rather strange ratio, but I have a data sheet and I even called to be sure it was not in error.
Originally Posted By: j454
Can someone tell which of the two; Zinc or Phosphorus is doing most of the protecting? I have come across one synthetic "group III oil" 15W-50 that has 1071ppm Zinc & 1631ppm Phosphorus. Why so much Phosphorus compared to the Zinc?
In simple terms, the P does the protecting - but as delivered in ZDDP. ZDDP is a low cost, effective molecule - it does the job pretty well at boundary surfaces. It's not like you can dump in phosporic acid salts of any flavor and get the same protection. That said there are some P bearing ester oils.
Those numbers sound like erroneous VOA readings IMHO. UNLESS the blender is using a different chemistry, of course. What oil?
The oil is: BENZ OIL ; Unifilm Motor Oil 15W-50 groupIII
And yes that is a rather strange ratio, but I have a data sheet and I even called to be sure it was not in error.
Originally Posted By: j454
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: j454
Can someone tell which of the two; Zinc or Phosphorus is doing most of the protecting? I have come across one synthetic "group III oil" 15W-50 that has 1071ppm Zinc & 1631ppm Phosphorus. Why so much Phosphorus compared to the Zinc?
In simple terms, the P does the protecting - but as delivered in ZDDP. ZDDP is a low cost, effective molecule - it does the job pretty well at boundary surfaces. It's not like you can dump in phosporic acid salts of any flavor and get the same protection. That said there are some P bearing ester oils.
Those numbers sound like erroneous VOA readings IMHO. UNLESS the blender is using a different chemistry, of course. What oil?
The oil is: BENZ OIL ; Unifilm Motor Oil 15W-50 groupIII
And yes that is a rather strange ratio, but I have a data sheet and I even called to be sure it was not in error.
Interesting to hear of an oil with its Phos number being above the zinc and especially at 1600.
BTW, I have various VOA tests done on Brad Penn, Royal Purple, VR1, etc.
VR1 did come in at 1018. Keep in mind I am seeing quite a variance between different labs.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: j454
Can someone tell which of the two; Zinc or Phosphorus is doing most of the protecting? I have come across one synthetic "group III oil" 15W-50 that has 1071ppm Zinc & 1631ppm Phosphorus. Why so much Phosphorus compared to the Zinc?
In simple terms, the P does the protecting - but as delivered in ZDDP. ZDDP is a low cost, effective molecule - it does the job pretty well at boundary surfaces. It's not like you can dump in phosporic acid salts of any flavor and get the same protection. That said there are some P bearing ester oils.
Those numbers sound like erroneous VOA readings IMHO. UNLESS the blender is using a different chemistry, of course. What oil?
The oil is: BENZ OIL ; Unifilm Motor Oil 15W-50 groupIII
And yes that is a rather strange ratio, but I have a data sheet and I even called to be sure it was not in error.
Interesting to hear of an oil with its Phos number being above the zinc and especially at 1600.
BTW, I have various VOA tests done on Brad Penn, Royal Purple, VR1, etc.
VR1 did come in at 1018. Keep in mind I am seeing quite a variance between different labs.
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Originally Posted By: Jaymus
I could have swore someone said Valvoline VR-1 was a 3000 mile oil because of the low detergents. Which, is fine, but the price is too high if that is true. Hard to beat HDEO's.
I stand corrected. Just called Valvoline. VR-1 Does have lower calcium additive and they will not, absolutely will not back up more than a 3000 mile OCI for it, whereas the Premium Conventional and other PCMOs they recommend 3000 mile, but will back up any manufacturers recommended OCI, so these oils can go 5000 or whatever. The reason for less calcium in VR1 he said was they put more friction modifier for horsepower.
That's more or less what I remembered about VR-1, and also things like Joe Gibbs Racing oil. Not sure about Royal Purple's XPR line but I'd assume similar.
I've now seen a lot of things that strongly imply that "low friction" in an engine is not always synonymous with "low wear." Depending on additive package I guess you can have low drag and still remove some metal, and with another addpack you can have higher drag but protect the metal better. (Highly simplified- I'm an electrical eng, not mechanical).
Originally Posted By: Jaymus
I could have swore someone said Valvoline VR-1 was a 3000 mile oil because of the low detergents. Which, is fine, but the price is too high if that is true. Hard to beat HDEO's.
I stand corrected. Just called Valvoline. VR-1 Does have lower calcium additive and they will not, absolutely will not back up more than a 3000 mile OCI for it, whereas the Premium Conventional and other PCMOs they recommend 3000 mile, but will back up any manufacturers recommended OCI, so these oils can go 5000 or whatever. The reason for less calcium in VR1 he said was they put more friction modifier for horsepower.
That's more or less what I remembered about VR-1, and also things like Joe Gibbs Racing oil. Not sure about Royal Purple's XPR line but I'd assume similar.
I've now seen a lot of things that strongly imply that "low friction" in an engine is not always synonymous with "low wear." Depending on additive package I guess you can have low drag and still remove some metal, and with another addpack you can have higher drag but protect the metal better. (Highly simplified- I'm an electrical eng, not mechanical).
Still, if I get a deal on VR1, you bet I'll run it, but only for 3000 miles unless an expert like Bruce381 can tell me an additive will extend it. But it does not sound like what I really want. I'll stick with Maxlife and a little zddp boost.
Originally Posted By: j454
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: j454
Can someone tell which of the two; Zinc or Phosphorus is doing most of the protecting? I have come across one synthetic "group III oil" 15W-50 that has 1071ppm Zinc & 1631ppm Phosphorus. Why so much Phosphorus compared to the Zinc?
In simple terms, the P does the protecting - but as delivered in ZDDP. ZDDP is a low cost, effective molecule - it does the job pretty well at boundary surfaces. It's not like you can dump in phosporic acid salts of any flavor and get the same protection. That said there are some P bearing ester oils.
Those numbers sound like erroneous VOA readings IMHO. UNLESS the blender is using a different chemistry, of course. What oil?
The oil is: BENZ OIL ; Unifilm Motor Oil 15W-50 groupIII
And yes that is a rather strange ratio, but I have a data sheet and I even called to be sure it was not in error.
Pablo...I'm trying to determine the order of which is best to least effective in wear/heat protection of these three 15W-50 oils; Amsoil RD-50 w/1575ppm Z & 1424ppm P, M1 w/1300ppm Z & 1200ppm P, and the above mentioned BENZ oil w/1071ppm Z & 1631ppm P. Anyone else please feel free to respond.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: j454
Can someone tell which of the two; Zinc or Phosphorus is doing most of the protecting? I have come across one synthetic "group III oil" 15W-50 that has 1071ppm Zinc & 1631ppm Phosphorus. Why so much Phosphorus compared to the Zinc?
In simple terms, the P does the protecting - but as delivered in ZDDP. ZDDP is a low cost, effective molecule - it does the job pretty well at boundary surfaces. It's not like you can dump in phosporic acid salts of any flavor and get the same protection. That said there are some P bearing ester oils.
Those numbers sound like erroneous VOA readings IMHO. UNLESS the blender is using a different chemistry, of course. What oil?
The oil is: BENZ OIL ; Unifilm Motor Oil 15W-50 groupIII
And yes that is a rather strange ratio, but I have a data sheet and I even called to be sure it was not in error.
Pablo...I'm trying to determine the order of which is best to least effective in wear/heat protection of these three 15W-50 oils; Amsoil RD-50 w/1575ppm Z & 1424ppm P, M1 w/1300ppm Z & 1200ppm P, and the above mentioned BENZ oil w/1071ppm Z & 1631ppm P. Anyone else please feel free to respond.
I think you will find there is more to "wear/heat protection" than Zn/P. Hard to say. I really don't know the Benz oil.
I know since joining this forum that there is a whole lot I don't know about oils. And I know that I mention Zn & P a lot when I'm trying to compare oils, it's seems the other parts of the formula are for the most part unknown. They seem to be called AW & FM but not what each of those consist. Anyway I'm leaning toward the RD-50 as being the best of those three. Thanks
Originally Posted By: Zaedock
Originally Posted By: genynnc
I read somewhere that Z & P isn't as critical with spring pressures remain under 100lbs. closed and 300lbs. open. I have kind of followed that and everything's worked out well... at least I think?
I'll agree with this. Look at the millions of 2.5L and 4.0L Jeep engines driving around on SM.
As it happens I own 4 or 5 Jeeps, and I part Jeeps and Jeep I6's out on a fairly regular basis, and am active in the Jeep enthusiast community. I'm a mod on a particularly topically related forum that is entirely focused on building and Stroking perfomance AMC I6's (jeepstroker.com).
I say all this to preface my next comment, wiped cam lobes are a relatively frequent thing, at least a familiar thing. I've experienced one, I've torn down a few 4.0's and 4.2's that had abnormal pitting and wear patterns, and a couple that had wiped factory cams. I've also sold a short block to a fellow jeepstrokers.com member who not only tore the block down to find another wiped OEM cam lobe, he himself also experienced a cam faliure.
I realize at this point that you might be thinking "oh boy a friend of a friend knows someone who heard of someone... But you can actually go to that forum and search and you'll find old posts and picture of exactly what I've just described.
There have been lots of other reported cam failures, Some of our best known members have experienced a failed lobe and/or lifter at all sorts of different mileage ranges and spring pressures. From as little as break in to as much as 40,000 miles on an aftermarket cam. ZDDP is a common topic on the forum, and one of the reasons I lurk here regularly.
I say all this to hopefully contradict the above quote in a nice way that doesn't sound all snooty... IMO the Jeep I6 has been one of the hardest hit by ZDDP related cam failure. OEM cams, aftermarket cams, old tired engines to freshly rebuilt stroker engines, and everything in between. Most of the membership being into rebuilding these engines I supposed might slew our perspective because most people never tear down one engine let alone multiple engines.
I have literally opened my own engine up to find rounded over cam lobes that I didn't even suspect. It's pretty amazing how long a hydraulic lifter can mask a rounded cam lobe before the lifter itself fails.
Originally Posted By: genynnc
I read somewhere that Z & P isn't as critical with spring pressures remain under 100lbs. closed and 300lbs. open. I have kind of followed that and everything's worked out well... at least I think?
I'll agree with this. Look at the millions of 2.5L and 4.0L Jeep engines driving around on SM.
As it happens I own 4 or 5 Jeeps, and I part Jeeps and Jeep I6's out on a fairly regular basis, and am active in the Jeep enthusiast community. I'm a mod on a particularly topically related forum that is entirely focused on building and Stroking perfomance AMC I6's (jeepstroker.com).
I say all this to preface my next comment, wiped cam lobes are a relatively frequent thing, at least a familiar thing. I've experienced one, I've torn down a few 4.0's and 4.2's that had abnormal pitting and wear patterns, and a couple that had wiped factory cams. I've also sold a short block to a fellow jeepstrokers.com member who not only tore the block down to find another wiped OEM cam lobe, he himself also experienced a cam faliure.
I realize at this point that you might be thinking "oh boy a friend of a friend knows someone who heard of someone... But you can actually go to that forum and search and you'll find old posts and picture of exactly what I've just described.
There have been lots of other reported cam failures, Some of our best known members have experienced a failed lobe and/or lifter at all sorts of different mileage ranges and spring pressures. From as little as break in to as much as 40,000 miles on an aftermarket cam. ZDDP is a common topic on the forum, and one of the reasons I lurk here regularly.
I say all this to hopefully contradict the above quote in a nice way that doesn't sound all snooty... IMO the Jeep I6 has been one of the hardest hit by ZDDP related cam failure. OEM cams, aftermarket cams, old tired engines to freshly rebuilt stroker engines, and everything in between. Most of the membership being into rebuilding these engines I supposed might slew our perspective because most people never tear down one engine let alone multiple engines.
I have literally opened my own engine up to find rounded over cam lobes that I didn't even suspect. It's pretty amazing how long a hydraulic lifter can mask a rounded cam lobe before the lifter itself fails.
that should read jeepstrokers.com the s at the end might make it a little easier to get to
a great link to a site that has done some serious googling http://www.lnengineering.com/oil.html
That link has made the rounds of the car enthusiast community forum world a few times so it probably familiar to some people.
The SAE papers he digs up paint a pretty clear picture... 11-12% ZDDP. lower leads to significant increased wear, % must be much higher if spring pressures increase above common OEM pressures.
The ideal amount of ZDDP (the sweet spot if you will) is very dependent on spring pressures and thus by extension also the level of abuse your valve train is subjected to. As pressures on the valve train increase with RPM. So a drag racer will need higher levels due to consistently higher RPM operation. That is in addition to needing more due to high spring rates and aggressive cam lobe profiles that create higher peak pressures...
Also topical: the pictures of cam lobes from the last Popular Hotrodding Engine Master Challenge... all engines used either RP or M1 (sponsors) all had crazy aggressive profiles, Flat tappets required and rocker ratio's were severe. They dyno'ed a couple dozen times or so after break in and many Cams came out looking like they are on the verge of failure, some contestants DID suffer cam failure. Extreme abuse for sure, but one wonders what the same engines with properly boosted (very high in their case) ZDDP levels might have looked like. No way to know, maybe just as bad, but I think there could have been measurable improvements.
That link has made the rounds of the car enthusiast community forum world a few times so it probably familiar to some people.
The SAE papers he digs up paint a pretty clear picture... 11-12% ZDDP. lower leads to significant increased wear, % must be much higher if spring pressures increase above common OEM pressures.
The ideal amount of ZDDP (the sweet spot if you will) is very dependent on spring pressures and thus by extension also the level of abuse your valve train is subjected to. As pressures on the valve train increase with RPM. So a drag racer will need higher levels due to consistently higher RPM operation. That is in addition to needing more due to high spring rates and aggressive cam lobe profiles that create higher peak pressures...
Also topical: the pictures of cam lobes from the last Popular Hotrodding Engine Master Challenge... all engines used either RP or M1 (sponsors) all had crazy aggressive profiles, Flat tappets required and rocker ratio's were severe. They dyno'ed a couple dozen times or so after break in and many Cams came out looking like they are on the verge of failure, some contestants DID suffer cam failure. Extreme abuse for sure, but one wonders what the same engines with properly boosted (very high in their case) ZDDP levels might have looked like. No way to know, maybe just as bad, but I think there could have been measurable improvements.
- Status