The article opens with noting ZDDP is limited, but it's not. The level selected is based on what they've determined to be an appropriate level, it isn't tempered by restriction like it is for the ILSAC compliant grades, so it makes that statement a red herring in the context of this conversation.
Maybe he meant has been limited by the oil companies (not the spec). Not sure. I thought levels went down due to catalytic converter fouling concerns. Mobil 1 5w50 Supercar and FS on the other hand has higher ZDDP iirc compared with the 0w40.
Nope, it's not restricted by the oil companies either, the levels are chosen based on what's appropriate for the approvals, you'll see a range of around 850-1,100 for phosphorous for A3/B4 oils (they hover around the 900-1,000ppm range on average).
Exactly, they could, but the don't, because based on the approvals, and the requisite testing for those approvals, it isn't necessary. More ZDDP isn't always beneficial, at the upper limits it becomes corrosive and it competes with other additives for surface space. The level selected is based on the target applications, which, for something like solid lifter pushrod racing engines, will be higher than for high performance DOHC mills for example.
And in the 996 UOAs by FlatSix/ Gibbs they advised that DT40 showed lower wear metals in DT40 with the higher ZDDP compared to Mobil 0w40 and DT40 stayed in grade. I also believe FlatSix did tear downs on the engines. And yes Mobil 0w40 is targeted at many Certs/specs/engines and maybe a compromise in the 996.
Again, I'm simply responding to this statement you made:
sds911 said:
I understand. I agree to disagree. If I have glitter in my used oil, I’ll document with dealer and go with the more robust oil (zddp, bn, moly), higher grade/hths, filter mag etc. In most cases, API or ACEA and MB specs/Porsche A40 are enough (80/20 rule etc balancing many factors and cost). But, in some cases you might improve on the wear protection (ie, DT40, HPL, Redline, Liquid Moly Ceratec etc.). Like for a tuned engine or multiple design issues in the 996 engine.
In reviewing the LN/Navaro article, he states that zddp (really b/c phosphorus) is limited by newer API specs SN and higher, including viscosities higher than 10w30 (ie, 0w40). Also notes higher levels still are allowed for ACEA oils. Nevertheless, older formulations still had higher zddp levels. I don’t know the answer and assume he is correct. But, nope - not a red herring in his discussion.I understand. I agree to disagree. If I have glitter in my used oil, I’ll document with dealer and go with the more robust oil (zddp, bn, moly), higher grade/hths, filter mag etc. In most cases, API or ACEA and MB specs/Porsche A40 are enough (80/20 rule etc balancing many factors and cost). But, in some cases you might improve on the wear protection (ie, DT40, HPL, Redline, Liquid Moly Ceratec etc.). Like for a tuned engine or multiple design issues in the 996 engine.
The OPs tuned engine wasn’t taken into account by these specs in any case. Now, that’s the real red herring.
That's incorrect, here's API SP:
Which would be irrelevant if the oil is claiming an API standard and that limit was applied. But as I've noted, it doesn't. He's claiming ACEA caps full SAPS at 1,200ppm of phosphorous, I'd have to check my documentation on that, but that's still higher than M1 0W-40 carries and most full-SAPS oils (see the range I gave to you earlier) and more in-line with what we see in HDEO's. M1 Super Car 5W-50 has 1,100ppm, 15W-50 is 1,200ppm, Racing 4T is 1,150ppm. Only their full-blown racing oils (0W-30, 0W-50) with zero approvals are higher at 1,770ppm.
I defer to what I've written above. Also, the old M1 0W-40 formulas never had super high levels of ZDDP. Your typical ILSAC oils, API SL and older did sometimes have higher levels of phosphorous than they do currently, thanks to the cap, but that's not what we are discussing here.
Emissions system protection is the reason phosphorous is claimed to be limited in the ILSAC grades, which, as I've gone through above, doesn't apply here. For Euro emissions systems protection, particularly DPF's and GPF's, that's how we ended up with the mid and low SAPS oils, which generally have lower levels of phosphorous. I can't see a correlation for drain intervals, the intervals for the full SAPS (high phosphorous oils) a HDEO's, typically enabled with high TBN were greatly extended.
Moly is synergistic with ZDDP (and there are various types of moly, but I don't think we need to get into that in this discussion), so you can reduce ZDDP a bit with additional moly (as well as borated compounds) and maintain the same level of wear protection. Of course that doesn't preclude wear protection from increasing by adding that same amount of moly to the higher amount of ZDDP.
ZDDP is an LSPI mitigator, while calcium, the most common detergent, is an LSPI instigator. So, in the typical full-SAPS oil, since you had more ZDDP, you had very low odds of triggering LSPI. With ILSAC grades, which have reduced ZDDP, the propensity for LSPI was higher, so there was a changeover to reduce calcium, while increasing magnesium detergent, to reduce the likelihood of LSPI.
Which is why I run full-SAPS oils in my stuff, to avoid the API restrictions. This includes the HPL "overkill" Super Car 0W-20 that Dave blended up for me in my RAM, which has the A3/B4, A40, LL-01...etc additive package blended into a 0W-20.
But that has nothing to do with your statement that I quoted where you are saying additive levels have been reduced due to CAFE and emissions, which, as I've explained, is not the case for the oil you and I are discussing (M1 FS 0W-40). So there really isn't something to agree to disagree on with respect to that.
Yes, some examples, like the one I gave about solid lifter pushrod engines for example, are beyond the scope for the approvals the oil carries. M1 FS 0W-40 is a good "universal" oil. It tends to do pretty much everything well, but there are going to be edge cases, and this applies I think to pretty much any full-SAPS Euro lube, where it isn't going to be enough if your application has requirements considerably beyond what are tested for in the approvals these oils carries.
The OP was running an ILSAC 0W-20, which has even lower levels of phosphorous (760ppm) than what we are discussing, lol. Also, I'm doubting a 25HP bump on that 2.5L turbo lump (the OTT 91 octane tune) is enough to set it outside the range where the oil we are discussing would be appropriate.The OPs tuned engine wasn’t taken into account by these specs in any case. Now, that’s the real red herring.
I'd assume he was referring to a non A3/B4 Mobil 1 product, since the A3/B4 A40 oils have been pretty static in terms of additive content up until this recent detergent swap for API SP.
Here's one from 2009, shows phosphorous at a bit under 900ppm (which is typical for Blackstone, they read a bit low), same as it is now:
Because the truck specs an xW-20 and I wanted to use the spec visc, while having the non-neutered full-SAPS additive package. This engine family isn't known for bottom end issues and has very well controlled oil temperatures. Plus, this oil has a higher HTHS than the grade would suggest.
I'm thinking it's a faulty engine, but @SubieRubyRoo's point about the 0W-40 having a more robust additive package and higher HTHS than what he was using is correct. But obviously that's not going to correct a manufacturing defect, which I suspect is what we are dealing with.
Looks like DT40 has 1,100ppm of phosphorous:
Again, I'm not telling you what to run in your equipment. As I've said, M1 FS 0W-40 is an excellent oil, which is not constrained by the API phosphorous limits (your claim), but that doesn't mean it's the best choice for everything. If you've got an application with known defects (which is what you are describing) and something can be used to bandaid that and delay the inevitable expensive repairs, then fill your boots. But that's not germane to the point I was responding to about additive levels.
Where have I stated the OP should stick to API 0W-20? Though I think he's got bigger problems at this juncture.
I'm not a fan of the API recommendations because they cater to blending cost (the API is chaired by the oil companies), and it is due to the likelihood of consumption in the ISLAC grades that phosphorous is limited. The OE specs are the other end of the spectrum, as they don't want their equipment to wear out prematurely. This is why Mercedes for example, has a lower limit on Noack, and a series of extensive engine tests with wear limits.
You are punching at ghosts. Where did I single out Ceratec? I think @SubieRubyRoo may have made a point to you about fully formulated oils vs additives, but I haven't gone down that road with you in this thread.
You seem to be of the impression that I'm not already well-read on this subject?
That's a mistake. You don't need to post sourceless screenshots, I've already covered a lot of that in this conversation, and had to correct some of what you've stated here because it was wrong, I assume due to reading some of this material.
Phosphorous is restricted to 600-800ppm in API SM and newer. It was 1,000ppm before that (API SL) and was 1,200 under API SJ. Zinc isn't the important part of the compound, as I explained above, it's the phosphorous.
Yeah, oldest image I found that was still around was 2009. There was one posted here in 2003, but the image no longer loads unfortunately. That said, I did find this one that was typed out:
Yes, those are the same levels we have currently, which, as I said to you at the beginning of this conversation, is withing the "typical" range for an A3/B4 A40, LL-01...etc full-SAPS oil.
Here's the relevant section of ACEA 2016, as you can see, phosphorous is simply listed as "report", so the restriction is not an ACEA one:
This DT40 UOA shows 1300+ zinc and 1187 phos. High moly and relatively high bn. But formula may have changed over time.
No. I assume you are well read. But, I also assume Navaro (LN) LS jr (Gibbs at time) and Raby (FlatSix) are too. And this is what I recall reading on their sites and hearing in person.I'd assume he was referring to a non A3/B4 Mobil 1 product, since the A3/B4 A40 oils have been pretty static in terms of additive content up until this recent detergent swap for API SP.
Here's one from 2009, shows phosphorous at a bit under 900ppm (which is typical for Blackstone, they read a bit low), same as it is now:
View attachment 274776
Because the truck specs an xW-20 and I wanted to use the spec visc, while having the non-neutered full-SAPS additive package. This engine family isn't known for bottom end issues and has very well controlled oil temperatures. Plus, this oil has a higher HTHS than the grade would suggest.
I'm thinking it's a faulty engine, but @SubieRubyRoo's point about the 0W-40 having a more robust additive package and higher HTHS than what he was using is correct. But obviously that's not going to correct a manufacturing defect, which I suspect is what we are dealing with.
Phosphorous is the AW component of ZDDP and also what is restricted by the API, Zinc is there as a delivery mechanism of sorts; it stabilizes the compound and allows it to work its magic, but it's phosphorous that does the hard work. This is why I typically don't mention zinc, since it's not constrained, the amount included is simply relative to the phosphorous, since it's a compound.
Looks like DT40 has 1,100ppm of phosphorous:
View attachment 274781
Again, I'm not telling you what to run in your equipment. As I've said, M1 FS 0W-40 is an excellent oil, which is not constrained by the API phosphorous limits (your claim), but that doesn't mean it's the best choice for everything. If you've got an application with known defects (which is what you are describing) and something can be used to bandaid that and delay the inevitable expensive repairs, then fill your boots. But that's not germane to the point I was responding to about additive levels.
Where have I stated the OP should stick to API 0W-20? Though I think he's got bigger problems at this juncture.
I'm not a fan of the API recommendations because they cater to blending cost (the API is chaired by the oil companies), and it is due to the likelihood of consumption in the ISLAC grades that phosphorous is limited. The OE specs are the other end of the spectrum, as they don't want their equipment to wear out prematurely. This is why Mercedes for example, has a lower limit on Noack, and a series of extensive engine tests with wear limits.
Unfortunately, in North America, where CAFE rules, OEM's are effectively forced into spec'ing ILSAC oils for their mass produced equipment.
You are punching at ghosts. Where did I single out Ceratec? I think @SubieRubyRoo may have made a point to you about fully formulated oils vs additives, but I haven't gone down that road with you in this thread.
You seem to be of the impression that I'm not already well-read on this subject?
There is an opportunity here to have a productive conversation, but that involves you figuring out who said what apparently, because you are ascribing arguments to me that I haven't made, and propping up strawmen so you can punch them down, which are in no way germane to the statement of yours that I took issue with.
It's also possible, since it's a UOA, that the results are being influenced by what was run previously, unless there were a series of runs on this oil? The VOA I posted appears to be a year newer than this UOA, so that's not a huge amount of time
People make mistakes, or stuff gets misinterpreted, that's why I keep things like the API and ACEA specs handy so I can reference them in exchanges like this, to clear that sort of thing up. Hopefully that's been useful to you.
Thank you for acknowledging that Ceratec wasn't my quarrel with you. "Better" is of course one of those things that would be extremely difficult to determine simply because we lack the resources to determine it. While more of one additive may be beneficial in a certain application, it may provide no measurable benefit in another. This is why a concert of approvals can be helpful in ensuring a specific level of performance, but that, as I mentioned earlier, doesn't apply to edge cases that are considerably outside their scope. I'd think the Toyota 2.5T is a considerably more pedestrian application with a mild tune on it, than say the engine in the A40 or LL-01 tests, given what it specs for oil in stock form.
Right, which is why I was a bit staggered that you seemed to be ascribing arguments to me I hadn't made, and then having it out with them, when I had thought that I had made it reasonably clear that it was a specific statement that I found to be problematic/inaccurate.
Well, it's correct in the context of ILSAC grades, but not for non-ILSAC ones, as I've shared and that has been a point of confusion in the past on here, that's why I tracked down the API sequences and have them handy. The only major change for the non-ILSAC grades over the last probably 20+ years has been under SN+/SP, and this is the change in detergent composition with the reduction in calcium and increase in magnesium as part of the LSPI mitigation strategy.
Yes. FlatSix/Raby advises at least 2 fills b4 DT40 takes over from prior different oil fills, unless you flush or use DT/Driven 30wt for a short run iirc.It's also possible, since it's a UOA, that the results are being influenced by what was run previously, unless there were a series of runs on this oil? The VOA I posted appears to be a year newer than this UOA, so that's not a huge amount of time