Oils for V8 SBC and Fords

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Francis

Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
353
Location
Australia
Now what I can not understand is the massive gap between what you guy's in the States are running in Push Rod V8's and what us Australians have and are running.

Over the last 5 years I have tried to uncover this mystery of light weight vs. heavy and Mineral vs. Syn, and I'm still confused!

Lets get to the weight issue first:

Firstly our major racing category is the V8 Supercars. Simular to Nascars, but our tracks are not oval shaped.

Here is a typical engine:

5 Litre Small Block Ford V8 with SVO Motorsport Head and a 302 Ford Motorsport Siamese Bore Block with electronic fuel injection by Motec Engine Management limited to 7500rpm (category maximum) and 10:1 compression ratio and Control 98 octane unleaded fuel.
Estimated Power: Approx 640HP at 7500rpm and 460F/lbs torque at 5600rpm

Top Speed: 300 kph (186 mph) 0 to 100 in 3.4 seconds

http://www.tripleeight.com.au/

I have been lucky enough to speak with several chef engineers of various teams, and to my surprise the oils most teams are using are mineral 25w 50. I have a letter from one Team owner that said " We have tried several leading syn oils, but don't get the same valve train life as with minerals. All out testing has proven that with Push rod technology, low revs (7500) and two valves per cylinder, these engines benefit from mineral oils". One team known for outstanding reliability uses a 25w 60 mineral oil, and talk on track is that there camshafts and valve train come out like brand new.

I have also spoken to guy's at CROWER, CRANE, COMP CAMS, YELLA TERRA, to list a few. Funny thing is that all these guy's are listing Mineral 20w 50 based oils for these style of engines.

I have also spoke with head tech's from Castrol, Shell, Valvoline, and I have also been told the same. At least 20w 50's and stick with Mineral oils for V8 engines.

What I just can't get my head around is how you guy's are really hammering Syn oils and ultra light weight oils in Big, Old Tuff V8 style engines.

I know typically Australia is a bit hotter, 77 deg F on a low average, but it' not to justify the massive gap in oil recommendations.

I know with the current issue of damaging Flat Tappet cams, companies like Castrol are pushing hard there Edge 25w 50 Mineral oil just for that very reason. Claming it's purpose designed for V8 Street and racing use engines with radical cam profiles.

QUOTE CASTROL : Edge 25w 50. High Performance mineral based oil recommended for modified engines, including push-rod technology street machines and big bore competition engines.

Lets use a 86 350 Chev Camero. Check any Australian website and you will get told to run a 20w 50 or 25w 50, some will even say a 20w 60 and while your there ask any oil company here and they will stress to only use Mineral oils as Syn's don't tend to provide these engines with the best style of protection.

But ask that question here and you will get all sorts of things like 5w 30's and so on. If you were to even ask about a light weight oil like this for a engine like these, after the laughing they would say something like that those oils are EPA oils, not engine oils, they are designed to meat emissions and comply with strict standards. Even GM are "off the record telling new car owners to run something a bit heavier then the recommended 5w 30 in there new engines, and I have also been told off the record to use anything else other then a full Syn straight from a GM dealer.

Now I don't know, so it's not a case of we right and your wrong, at all, but I am really trying hard to find how both ends of the scale can be right?

I would really love to know what actual oils the Nascars are using, because if major companies like Crower and Comp Cams are pushing quality, 20w 50 mineral based oils then sponsorship aside I'm guessing it would be pretty close to our V8 Supercars.
 
I think it's a very good question. I have never used the manufacturer-recommended 5W 30 in my vehicles, as it just seemed "too thin". I know I will get flogged for this, but I have generally used 10W 40 or 20W 50, because I was "afraid" to use the lower-vis stuff.

I had just about convinced myself to go witha 10W 30 syn in my old 5.7l TBI Chevy pickup at the next change. Just to see what happens. Now Francis poses this (legitimate, IMHO) question, and I just don't know.

Here in NorCal, we do see hot summer temps. Always a week or two of 100F+ weather, and this summer, we had several consecutive days in the 105F-115F range. Winters are mild, with only a few days of freezing temps.

I did notice on a couple of occasions that my old Land Cruiser straight six was reluctant to turn over on freezing mornings with 20W 50 GTX in it, but it sure was quieter in the summer!

So, my truck engine has about 50K miles on it and is in relatively good shape. The rest of the carcass is pushing 300K, but I'm planning to keep it. What is the general consensus on the oil I should be running? The spec, as mentioned is 5W 30.
 
IMHO in addition to the usual anti-wear, anti-foaming, detergency additives, VI, etc. the way I see motor oil is as follows:

-->thick enough to suspend the bearings properly under high load conditions, yet thin enough to carry the heat away various different internal engine parts for proper cooling.

I know there are many sayings out there RE: thicker is better (20W50 in a gasoline engine) but frankly, assuming that your cam is properly forged and there are sufficient AW/AP additives in the motor oil to keep the wear level well under control and your engine bearings, oil pump, etc. are all in proper specifications, there isn't any reason why one cannot use thinner motor oil for the aforementioned reasons.

20W50? You haven't seen anything related to oil circulation difficulties which leads to bearing wear, cylinder wall scuffing, etc., have you?

My 2c's worth, and I never go beyond 15W40 on diesel engines so far, letting alone gasoline engines.
 
Francis, great post on what's being taught and used downunder. Oft thought the same thing, although I don't see any more 20W-50s in my future.

Quest,
Oz cars were almost universally specced for 20W-50 for decades, up to, and including the 90s. Anything running 20W-50 would run for 200-300,000km before starting to smoke. (MY parents sold a Renault 16 with over 380,000km, and 1 litre/5000km. They've got a pulsar with 300,000km (J-Car engined), and half a litre per OCI on M1 5W-50)

Oil consumption of 1 quart/5000km, and people started talking about rebuilds.

Bear in mind that it's hard to find an area in which a cold start is below -10C.
 
Hi, I see your point in some way, but not in others.

20w 50's should be around near forever really. There are a heap of cars still around that need them, and guy's that still use them. Find good ones will and is getting harder.

However the biggest killer of the old 200,000 - 300,000kms cars of the past are directly linked to poor maintenance. Looking at allot of people and most with cars form the 80's and 90's, most people would be lucky to of changed there oil once a year, and no matter what oil, thick or thin, min or syn, it can only take so much.

I've often had that same thought in my head, and just in the last few years I have started to see VS Commodores blowing smoke and the last of the Magnas, also starting on the Blue smoke trail. These cars would at thickest use workshop 15w or 10w 40's.

I have also seen old beat up 4 Cyl cars that have done over 600,000kms, and not had an oil change in years! Only to be toped up with cheap supermarket oil, NOT blowing smoke. (Would not want to do an oil change though)

I really believe that if your changing mineral oil in an engine that is happy with 20w 50's then there is no reason why it should start blowing smoke any sooner then a car using light weight oil.

Some please prove me Wrong here, but I can not see why a 20w 50 would ware an engine out sooner then a 5w 30 if they are both quality oils and maintenance the same and the engine was designed to handle that weight.
 
Hmmm, I wonder.
IIRC, Doug Hillary was in with some of the Mobil teams, and I'm sure he said they were using M1R.......
and FWIW, back in the eighties, the TWR guys were definately using Motul 300V when they were Castrol sponsored, but that was in V12 Jags. I used to know a few of the head mechanics, but the one I knew very well works in the states these days, and he always said don't believe a word most of the team managers, etc uttered. They wouldn't really tell you what they were up to, even if you were a good customer, re engines, etc.
Also, I used to know Pat Purcell pretty well, one of the all time great engine builders/racers here. When I knew Pat (who did my cylinder head work) he and hs then head porting guru Tristan had supplied Gibson Motorsport and HRT with their cylinder heads when both teams dominated, and he was doing a lot of Nascar,(when it was still alive here) Sprint Car and boat engines, mostly SBC's, some Ford small blocks and some BBC's for boats, and he mostly used off the shelf M1 15W-50. (not sure about the Sprint Car engines) Charlie O'brien was BP sponsored in Nascar then, and he actually used Visco 5000, and Pat said the engines also looked excellent when pulled down.

I wonder if what they say they are using and what they are actually using are two different things. I do know that Shell used to supply special xW-30 race oils to their sponsored teams. I also know I never let on what I was using in Formula Ford, and neither did the other engine builders who were at the pointy end of the field. One engine builder did specify Castrol 25W-50 for his customer engines, but that cost over 4hp and 4lb/ft right across the range compared to what we and others were using when I tested them back to back.
Sorry, but I can't help and be cynical, as the valve train loads will be less in our V8 series than the 9000+RPM used in Nascar.
 
Quote:

I can't help and be cynical, as the valve train loads will be less in our V8 series than the 9000+RPM used in Nascar

Click to expand...


Perhaps, but there can be no doubting the massive load on the valve train due to the radical profiles both racing formats would be running to get every drop of HP out of these engines.

I can add that I have heard John Sidney Racing and Gary Rogers Racing both wont touch Mobil 1 stuff at all, due to camshaft failures in the past.

I was also told in my travels talking with a few guy's I know at Yella Terra, that a few years ago a Well known Holden Mobil 1 sponsored team were having massive problems with Cam failures. This went away after they tried Valvoline Racing oil that another team was known for great cam life in their engines. Word had it that Mobil made a Booster pack for their sponsored teams after that.
 
Does it sound reasonable to assume that good oil for racing always comes with increase level of EP additives?
For example: RP is not known to be a great street oil but is very well known in racing circle, does EP additives really helps in this type of situation/condition? I doubt super thick mineral oil will do the trick without a healthy dose of EP, does anyone have any Timken result from the 25w60 mineral oil that is mention?
 
I think because everyone on here agrees that the use of lower vis oils is due to Gov't regulations, not what engineers think SHOULD be used. Plus if there is a warranty issue, it would be a hard fight if they decided your engine failed because of the oil you used.
 
I often tell people that GM PErformance Parts recomends 20W50 it's performance engines like the ZZ4,502.....etc.... Many books that can be bought from GM and FOrd on how to build their "small and big block engnies" for performance will tell you the same thing. The problem is that too many people read that cheap worthless owner's manual that came with their car and use that data to base their future opions on concerning a given block or engine series haveing never actualy built one or raced one.

I have always found M1 15W50,Amsoil Raceing 20W50,M1 V-Twin 20W50 all work great in H.O. engines. I do not think it matters if it is OHC or OHV. It comes down to valve train gemotry,knose load,and power density. It is not the mineral or dino base stock that really makes the difference. It is the additive package. When you get into the lighter synthetic and non-raceing dino oil you get whimpy cheap catalytic converter friendly oils that can not protect under race conditions in these applications. Most dino race oils are loaded with ZDDP!!!!
 
From the Croweer link:

The synthetics offer the only truly significant differences, due to their superior high temperature oxidation resistance, high film strength, very low tendency to form deposits, stable viscosity base, and low temperature flow characteristics. Synthetics are superior lubricants compared to traditional petroleum oils. You will have to decide if their high cost is justified in your application.

It looks like Crower recommends Kendall oil. Mayber their aversion to synthetics is "bought".
 
Quote:

I often tell people that GM PErformance Parts recomends 20W50 it's performance engines like the ZZ4,502.....etc.... Many books that can be bought from GM and FOrd on how to build their "small and big block engnies" for performance will tell you the same thing. The problem is that too many people read that cheap worthless owner's manual that came with their car and use that data to base their future opions on concerning a given block or engine series haveing never actualy built one or raced one.

Click to expand...


And I've asked you many times which ones...since I have yet to see a GM blessed Performance Manual that recommends 20w50 in all the crate engines.

Let see if you walk away from this thread like you did all the others.
 
Quote:

Wow. I figured the regulars would be all over this, with ensuing controversy and generally good discussion...

Click to expand...


Your assertions are too general along with the mixing of apples and kiwi fruit.

Here's a few points to illustrate:

Virtually all GM pushrod engines have had roller lifters since 1986.

Many other forms of pushrod racing engines use 20w50 to complement clearance choices and/or fuel dilution and many are using non-roller lifters.

NASCAR (Nextel Cup Level) was one of the first to discover that with the proper surface finishes and tight clearances, low viscosity oils would free up substantial horsepower while not being detrimental to engine life. Most current failures are due to components whose life is not affected by viscosity.

I could go on for pages, but I tire of splitting the atoms of the horse that been beaten down to atomic-sized particles about 1,000 posts earlier.

tombstone.gif
 
NASCAR uses mushroom tapets last I heard, not rollers. So what if they grind the cam down in a few parade laps, last I heard NASCAR (even the cell phone cup) uses one engine per race at over $80,000 a pop. Not one per season like the rest of us.

Piston side loading, rocker balls and valve tips are other areas to look at.

This is a good discussion though.
 
Quote:

From the Croweer link:

The synthetics offer the only truly significant differences, due to their superior high temperature oxidation resistance, high film strength, very low tendency to form deposits, stable viscosity base, and low temperature flow characteristics. Synthetics are superior lubricants compared to traditional petroleum oils. You will have to decide if their high cost is justified in your application.

It looks like Crower recommends Kendall oil. Mayber their aversion to synthetics is "bought".

Click to expand...


Most Kendall oils are "semi-synthetic" these days...
 
Quote:

NASCAR uses mushroom tapets last I heard, not rollers. So what if they grind the cam down in a few parade laps, last I heard NASCAR (even the cell phone cup) uses one engine per race at over $80,000 a pop. Not one per season like the rest of us.

Piston side loading, rocker balls and valve tips are other areas to look at.

This is a good discussion though.

Click to expand...


More mixing of apples with kiwi fruit.
smirk.gif


Determining lubrication requirements of ones pushrod Ford or Chevy based on what is done in NASCAR is fool hearty at best. When your pushrod SB Ford or Chevy starts producing 800+ normally aspirated HP and is run WOT at 7000-9500 RPMs for several hours, I'm willing to bet it won't last the whole season either.

And throwing out random facts like the use of mushroom lifters (first used because of super agressive cam profiles) adds little insight without knowing why they were used in the first place.

Rocker balls and valve tips rarely, if ever, operate in the hydrodynamic regime.

And why be concerned with piston side loading when the piston pin in a NASCAR engine experiences 6 tons of force 77 times a second.
 
getting back to the original Q of syn vs mineral in race engines, as John said, valve train wear or lack of is a function of the additive pack, not what base oil is being used.
And as 427Z06 said, micro-polishing has been used for years now to maximise life on all rotating/sliding surfaces in 'money is no object' race series. Surface finish has a major bearing on wear levels in any engine. If something isn't quite right in just one of those areas in the valve train with the loads that they are seeing, the lube can become an easy scape goat. The FF engine builder example I used above who insisted his customers use (then) Castrol GP50 (now Edge 25W-50) which cost them power did so as a crutch as he was experiencing massive bore wear. Instead of changing his compression ring or bore finish (which were incompatable with each other, IMHO) he just made everyone run a heavier, highly additised oil and his customers went slower.

I truly do doubt that 'all' the teams here are using off the shelf Castrol Edge 25W-50 mineral oil, when they can get better results wiith dedicated race oils from Motul, Redline, Elf, M1R, etc.

This is a quote from Doug in an old thread
Quote:

In OZ the V8Supercars (600+hp) were using M1 15w-50 (special blend not sold here) but now use M1R as required


Click to expand...


I also forgot, and the thread that I pinched Dougs quote from jogged my memory is that heavier weight oils are sometimes used in long distance races to combat fuel dilution http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post121940

anyway, as 427Z06 said.....
deadhorse.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
1980 CHEV PU, correct oil
Replies
5
Views
273
PontiacHO
Cujet
Highest HTHS oils available, taking into account shear stability
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
donnyj08
S
Does thickness of the oil matter on a performance application?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
Stopsign32v
C
Need help with 1996 Chevy Caprice 4.3 V8 fluids.
Replies
14
Views
538
Lawnman23
NibbanaBanana
Same Car Same Engine, Different Country Different Oil
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
perkz
Back
Top Bottom