The EPA makes mileage requirements for the manufactures in essence to lower emissions. It does not rate each and every car emissions but sets a max limit it must fall below. The thinking is if a car gets twice the mileage it would use half the amount of gas in turn lowering emissions. It has forced manufacturers to use thinner oil to maximize the mileage so it would not get penalized for each .1 it falls below a set standard. Look in other countries and the same car uses thicker oils than the U.S. with their requirements. Also newer thinner SM oils with limited phosphorus and zinc that must be more fuel efficient than older SL rated oils are less desirable to ME. 10w-40 weight oils do not fall into the same requirements but are harder to find. As the EPA keeps requiring the manufacturers to meet longer emission warranty time frame the oils will keep getting reduced anti wear additives such as phosphorus and zinc - which poison catalytic converters. What I remember as 5 year 50K miles is now 10 year 120k miles up from the previous 8 year 80k miles. Penny smart dollar foolish. There is more pollution to manufacture a new car and transport it - especially an import than keep a clunker on the road for the next 10 years. And considering the manufacture shoots for 10 years or 150k mile longevity, it all seems asinine. Sorry to rumble. Just a car guy that is in the industry and the more he finds out the more it kills the passion inside him.
EPA not helping but hurting oils
- Thread starter joflewbyu2
- Start date
- Status
I think that is why they are putting more boron and moly in new oils- to replace ZDDP which is being limited by the EPA
Haven't seen any issues with the emmission compatable oils. It has driven better oils IMO.
I think we are at the limit right now unless everyone on the eartht hat builds light duty passenger car engines and by light duty that includes 1 ton trucks with diesels goes over to roller set up. They have been smart so far and left ZDDP levels in diesel oils alone for the most part and when they reduce the ZDDP rest assured they are useing non-metalic AW/EP additives that are not showing up in UOA or engines would be droping left and right. We do not see the same level of technology ggoing into gasoline engines. So far all they have really done is reduce things and put some token amounts of boron bond additives and some moly here and their. We have not sceene a significant amount of anything new and high tech on the retail shelf. I have not seen any antimony or tungsten based AW/EP aditives in 5W30 dino oil or synthetic. I have not scene any real increase in moly either. So far all we have really gotten is a reduction in ZDDP. WOW blow my socks off!
Bryanccfshr, It has only made oils better if you use dino oils because they had to use less volitile base stocks. It has not done anything but weak retail synthetics M1 5W30 all the way up trough the Tri-Syn line up could easily do 18K-25K miles in most vechiles with no problems. I do not think M1 5W30 as it is today and the M1 5W30EP are as good as the oils we had to give up to meet GF3/4 and SM levels.
It leveled te playing field, I can agree with that. I believe Mobil 1 and all the other off the shelf synthetics are better than they were and are progressively getting better. I respectfully disagree that things have gotten worse for synthetics. Large improvements in performance parameters have been made. The narrowing of the target for performance has simply closed the gap between conventional and synthetic lubricants. The synthetic lubricants have improved, but conventionals have imprioves alot more, moving so fast as some would say, they make OTC synthetics look like they were standing still.
If you have flat tappet cams, they have gotten much worse IMHO. The machine shop/engine build shop around here has seen a marked increase in camshaft failures since the EPA neutered the zinc in oils.
The oil base stocks are better, that is for sure. It just makes me shake my head that the government would chose your catalytic converter over your engine.
The oil base stocks are better, that is for sure. It just makes me shake my head that the government would chose your catalytic converter over your engine.
As a Porsche mechanic, on a Porsche website said, "A Porsche engine is much more expensive than a catalytic converter".
Yeah and my old Muscle car does not even have one. Heck just about any decent non roller Big Block Chevy wont live long with modern off the shelf oils with that 1:7 rocker ratio.
Old flat tappet engines can be converted to roller rockers. Pay now or pay later. For most this is not an issue. WE need to Smog NASCAR BTW.
Originally Posted By: Gunatics_Adler
Yeah and my old Muscle car does not even have one. Heck just about any decent non roller Big Block Chevy wont live long with modern off the shelf oils with that 1:7 rocker ratio.
It has been my experience once you put a nasty flat tappet cam and proper valvetrain parts the cams don't last very long. I wonder if they are low quality in retrospect?
Yeah and my old Muscle car does not even have one. Heck just about any decent non roller Big Block Chevy wont live long with modern off the shelf oils with that 1:7 rocker ratio.
It has been my experience once you put a nasty flat tappet cam and proper valvetrain parts the cams don't last very long. I wonder if they are low quality in retrospect?
I am guessing that is part of it. I know my fathers fuelie 327 had a radical flat tappet cam in it and it lasted forever on the pre neutered oil.
There have been a shortage in suppliers of lifters according to various literature, some of it from low quality suppliers.
The fact is that the oils of yesterday were inferior, but had superior anti wear additives so the parts survived. Now its shifted 180, and lots of people are running lobes off their cams or dishing out their lifters. Although it has been very good for the local machine shop. They are now a Kendall dealer and sell the higher zinc oil to the people with flat tappets.
There have been a shortage in suppliers of lifters according to various literature, some of it from low quality suppliers.
The fact is that the oils of yesterday were inferior, but had superior anti wear additives so the parts survived. Now its shifted 180, and lots of people are running lobes off their cams or dishing out their lifters. Although it has been very good for the local machine shop. They are now a Kendall dealer and sell the higher zinc oil to the people with flat tappets.
The issue is not oils and ZDDP and flat tappet cams. The issue is camshaft manufactures building wimpy cams and looking for a cop out. I know of a 1975 chevy 350 that has a steady diet of 10W-40 QS SL/SM rated oil for the last 75,000 miles so that puts about 425,000 miles on the truck and engine. This is on about 7,000 mile OCI for the last 25 years in the desert southwest and Mexico. It is running strong I do not want to hear it is the oil's fault for camshaft failures. Make a better or correct cam for your desired apilication. This is my 2 cents.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: joflewbyu2
The EPA makes mileage requirements for the manufactures in essence to lower emissions. It does not rate each and every car emissions but sets a max limit it must fall below. The thinking is if a car gets twice the mileage it would use half the amount of gas in turn lowering emissions. It has forced manufacturers to use thinner oil to maximize the mileage so it would not get penalized for each .1 it falls below a set standard. Look in other countries and the same car uses thicker oils than the U.S. with their requirements.
Not so much in recent years. Foreign new car oil recommendations are getting closer to ours.
Also newer thinner SM oils with limited phosphorus and zinc
Wrong. SM oil is not thinner. SM oil is not lower in the zinc phosphate compounds unless it is also rated ILSCA GF-4. This is not an SM thing, it is a GF-4 thing.
that must be more fuel efficient than older SL rated oils are less desirable to ME. 10w-40 weight oils do not fall into the same requirements but are harder to find.
10W-40 always was a poor choice of oil. It is better now with modern viscosity index improves, but a 30 point spread is often asking too much.
As the EPA keeps requiring the manufacturers to meet longer emission warranty time frame the oils will keep getting reduced anti wear additives such as phosphorus and zinc - which poison catalytic converters.
Phosphorus does poison the cats, but the new tactic is for less volatile oils to keep the P in the engine. It likely won't go lower
What I remember as 5 year 50K miles is now 10 year 120k miles up from the previous 8 year 80k miles. Penny smart dollar foolish. There is more pollution to manufacture a new car and transport it - especially an import than keep a clunker on the road for the next 10 years. And considering the manufacture shoots for 10 years or 150k mile longevity, it all seems asinine. Sorry to rumble. Just a car guy that is in the industry and the more he finds out the more it kills the passion inside him.
Any more rants-without-full-information being held inside you?
The EPA makes mileage requirements for the manufactures in essence to lower emissions. It does not rate each and every car emissions but sets a max limit it must fall below. The thinking is if a car gets twice the mileage it would use half the amount of gas in turn lowering emissions. It has forced manufacturers to use thinner oil to maximize the mileage so it would not get penalized for each .1 it falls below a set standard. Look in other countries and the same car uses thicker oils than the U.S. with their requirements.
Not so much in recent years. Foreign new car oil recommendations are getting closer to ours.
Also newer thinner SM oils with limited phosphorus and zinc
Wrong. SM oil is not thinner. SM oil is not lower in the zinc phosphate compounds unless it is also rated ILSCA GF-4. This is not an SM thing, it is a GF-4 thing.
that must be more fuel efficient than older SL rated oils are less desirable to ME. 10w-40 weight oils do not fall into the same requirements but are harder to find.
10W-40 always was a poor choice of oil. It is better now with modern viscosity index improves, but a 30 point spread is often asking too much.
As the EPA keeps requiring the manufacturers to meet longer emission warranty time frame the oils will keep getting reduced anti wear additives such as phosphorus and zinc - which poison catalytic converters.
Phosphorus does poison the cats, but the new tactic is for less volatile oils to keep the P in the engine. It likely won't go lower
What I remember as 5 year 50K miles is now 10 year 120k miles up from the previous 8 year 80k miles. Penny smart dollar foolish. There is more pollution to manufacture a new car and transport it - especially an import than keep a clunker on the road for the next 10 years. And considering the manufacture shoots for 10 years or 150k mile longevity, it all seems asinine. Sorry to rumble. Just a car guy that is in the industry and the more he finds out the more it kills the passion inside him.
Any more rants-without-full-information being held inside you?
Originally Posted By: Ken2
Originally Posted By: joflewbyu2
The EPA makes mileage requirements for the manufactures in essence to lower emissions. It does not rate each and every car emissions but sets a max limit it must fall below. The thinking is if a car gets twice the mileage it would use half the amount of gas in turn lowering emissions. It has forced manufacturers to use thinner oil to maximize the mileage so it would not get penalized for each .1 it falls below a set standard. Look in other countries and the same car uses thicker oils than the U.S. with their requirements.
Not so much in recent years. Foreign new car oil recommendations are getting closer to ours.
Also newer thinner SM oils with limited phosphorus and zinc
Wrong. SM oil is not thinner. SM oil is not lower in the zinc phosphate compounds unless it is also rated ILSCA GF-4. This is not an SM thing, it is a GF-4 thing.
that must be more fuel efficient than older SL rated oils are less desirable to ME. 10w-40 weight oils do not fall into the same requirements but are harder to find.
10W-40 always was a poor choice of oil. It is better now with modern viscosity index improves, but a 30 point spread is often asking too much.
As the EPA keeps requiring the manufacturers to meet longer emission warranty time frame the oils will keep getting reduced anti wear additives such as phosphorus and zinc - which poison catalytic converters.
Phosphorus does poison the cats, but the new tactic is for less volatile oils to keep the P in the engine. It likely won't go lower
What I remember as 5 year 50K miles is now 10 year 120k miles up from the previous 8 year 80k miles. Penny smart dollar foolish. There is more pollution to manufacture a new car and transport it - especially an import than keep a clunker on the road for the next 10 years. And considering the manufacture shoots for 10 years or 150k mile longevity, it all seems asinine. Sorry to rumble. Just a car guy that is in the industry and the more he finds out the more it kills the passion inside him.
Any more rants-without-full-information being held inside you?
Wow !! You put your foot in your mouth. Wake up. API’s new companion category to ILSAC GF-4, to be called SM. Vehicle manufacturers issued GF-4, the new gasoline engine oil specification, through ILSAC, the International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee, on Jan. 14. API’s Lubricants Committee is responsible for defining the SM specifications which will become a worldwide standard. It has 13 members: three chemical additive companies and 10 oil companies. Can you name a heavy weight SM rated oil? No you can't - hence SM rated oils are thinner than SL rated oils. That is a fact. The ACEA have a much stricter oil rating than the U.S. in wear. Check out this chart and input the different ratings for yourself to prove the foreign standards are so far away and better than the U.S. SM are towards "fuel economy & oxidative thickening" where as the A5/B5 is towards "wear & Sludge". http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/lubrizol/EOACEA2009/RP/PC/index.html
I never stated only dino oil and no sythetic. Your 30 weight spread would only be related to dino oil uses a bunch of additives to boost the Viscosity Index which synthetics would not need. Remember a dino 5w30 oil is a 5w with additives to help it achieve a 30w when hot. A synthetic 5w30 is a 30 weight oil that flows like a 5w when cold. Being close to R&D you will discover wear & performance give way to grants and profits. Basically bribery to play ball with them or be shut out.
Originally Posted By: joflewbyu2
The EPA makes mileage requirements for the manufactures in essence to lower emissions. It does not rate each and every car emissions but sets a max limit it must fall below. The thinking is if a car gets twice the mileage it would use half the amount of gas in turn lowering emissions. It has forced manufacturers to use thinner oil to maximize the mileage so it would not get penalized for each .1 it falls below a set standard. Look in other countries and the same car uses thicker oils than the U.S. with their requirements.
Not so much in recent years. Foreign new car oil recommendations are getting closer to ours.
Also newer thinner SM oils with limited phosphorus and zinc
Wrong. SM oil is not thinner. SM oil is not lower in the zinc phosphate compounds unless it is also rated ILSCA GF-4. This is not an SM thing, it is a GF-4 thing.
that must be more fuel efficient than older SL rated oils are less desirable to ME. 10w-40 weight oils do not fall into the same requirements but are harder to find.
10W-40 always was a poor choice of oil. It is better now with modern viscosity index improves, but a 30 point spread is often asking too much.
As the EPA keeps requiring the manufacturers to meet longer emission warranty time frame the oils will keep getting reduced anti wear additives such as phosphorus and zinc - which poison catalytic converters.
Phosphorus does poison the cats, but the new tactic is for less volatile oils to keep the P in the engine. It likely won't go lower
What I remember as 5 year 50K miles is now 10 year 120k miles up from the previous 8 year 80k miles. Penny smart dollar foolish. There is more pollution to manufacture a new car and transport it - especially an import than keep a clunker on the road for the next 10 years. And considering the manufacture shoots for 10 years or 150k mile longevity, it all seems asinine. Sorry to rumble. Just a car guy that is in the industry and the more he finds out the more it kills the passion inside him.
Any more rants-without-full-information being held inside you?
Wow !! You put your foot in your mouth. Wake up. API’s new companion category to ILSAC GF-4, to be called SM. Vehicle manufacturers issued GF-4, the new gasoline engine oil specification, through ILSAC, the International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee, on Jan. 14. API’s Lubricants Committee is responsible for defining the SM specifications which will become a worldwide standard. It has 13 members: three chemical additive companies and 10 oil companies. Can you name a heavy weight SM rated oil? No you can't - hence SM rated oils are thinner than SL rated oils. That is a fact. The ACEA have a much stricter oil rating than the U.S. in wear. Check out this chart and input the different ratings for yourself to prove the foreign standards are so far away and better than the U.S. SM are towards "fuel economy & oxidative thickening" where as the A5/B5 is towards "wear & Sludge". http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/lubrizol/EOACEA2009/RP/PC/index.html
I never stated only dino oil and no sythetic. Your 30 weight spread would only be related to dino oil uses a bunch of additives to boost the Viscosity Index which synthetics would not need. Remember a dino 5w30 oil is a 5w with additives to help it achieve a 30w when hot. A synthetic 5w30 is a 30 weight oil that flows like a 5w when cold. Being close to R&D you will discover wear & performance give way to grants and profits. Basically bribery to play ball with them or be shut out.
Originally Posted By: joflewbyu2
Ken2 said:
Originally Posted By: dave1251
The issue is not oils and ZDDP and flat tappet cams. The issue is camshaft manufactures building wimpy cams and looking for a cop out. I know of a 1975 chevy 350 that has a steady diet of 10W-40 QS SL/SM rated oil for the last 75,000 miles so that puts about 425,000 miles on the truck and engine. This is on about 7,000 mile OCI for the last 25 years in the desert southwest and Mexico. It is running strong I do not want to hear it is the oil's fault for camshaft failures. Make a better or correct cam for your desired apilication. This is my 2 cents.
Well that would be a mid 70's low output smogger motor. Now if it were an original high output LT1 then I would agree. Weak flat tappet cams with mild profiles and weaker spings wont wear out. But an aggressive flat tappet cam profile with stronger springs will die a quick death with weaker oils. My [censored] 86 vintage 305 was labeled "high output" at 190 HP, but it was a pooch smogger motor. Heck the [censored] 307 Chevy put out that much HP.
The issue is not oils and ZDDP and flat tappet cams. The issue is camshaft manufactures building wimpy cams and looking for a cop out. I know of a 1975 chevy 350 that has a steady diet of 10W-40 QS SL/SM rated oil for the last 75,000 miles so that puts about 425,000 miles on the truck and engine. This is on about 7,000 mile OCI for the last 25 years in the desert southwest and Mexico. It is running strong I do not want to hear it is the oil's fault for camshaft failures. Make a better or correct cam for your desired apilication. This is my 2 cents.
Well that would be a mid 70's low output smogger motor. Now if it were an original high output LT1 then I would agree. Weak flat tappet cams with mild profiles and weaker spings wont wear out. But an aggressive flat tappet cam profile with stronger springs will die a quick death with weaker oils. My [censored] 86 vintage 305 was labeled "high output" at 190 HP, but it was a pooch smogger motor. Heck the [censored] 307 Chevy put out that much HP.
Originally Posted By: Gunatics_Adler
Originally Posted By: dave1251
The issue is not oils and ZDDP and flat tappet cams. The issue is camshaft manufactures building wimpy cams and looking for a cop out. I know of a 1975 chevy 350 that has a steady diet of 10W-40 QS SL/SM rated oil for the last 75,000 miles so that puts about 425,000 miles on the truck and engine. This is on about 7,000 mile OCI for the last 25 years in the desert southwest and Mexico. It is running strong I do not want to hear it is the oil's fault for camshaft failures. Make a better or correct cam for your desired apilication. This is my 2 cents.
Well that would be a mid 70's low output smogger motor. Now if it were an original high output LT1 then I would agree. Weak flat tappet cams with mild profiles and weaker spings wont wear out. But an aggressive flat tappet cam profile with stronger springs will die a quick death with weaker oils. My [censored] 86 vintage 305 was labeled "high output" at 190 HP, but it was a pooch smogger motor. Heck the [censored] 307 Chevy put out that much HP.
Read about wimpy and incorrect cam.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
The issue is not oils and ZDDP and flat tappet cams. The issue is camshaft manufactures building wimpy cams and looking for a cop out. I know of a 1975 chevy 350 that has a steady diet of 10W-40 QS SL/SM rated oil for the last 75,000 miles so that puts about 425,000 miles on the truck and engine. This is on about 7,000 mile OCI for the last 25 years in the desert southwest and Mexico. It is running strong I do not want to hear it is the oil's fault for camshaft failures. Make a better or correct cam for your desired apilication. This is my 2 cents.
Well that would be a mid 70's low output smogger motor. Now if it were an original high output LT1 then I would agree. Weak flat tappet cams with mild profiles and weaker spings wont wear out. But an aggressive flat tappet cam profile with stronger springs will die a quick death with weaker oils. My [censored] 86 vintage 305 was labeled "high output" at 190 HP, but it was a pooch smogger motor. Heck the [censored] 307 Chevy put out that much HP.
Read about wimpy and incorrect cam.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky