redline incresed zinc and phos

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
3,073
Location
moutain country
talked to dave yesterday and all the car oils have been improved.

old zinc =1230ppm
new zinc =1350ppm

old phos =1100ppm
new zinc = 1230ppm

moly same = 950ppm

also, redline is now making a break in oil additive zinc 9000 ppm
phos.7500ppm..no moly
 
Last edited:
I don't see this as an improvement for most "modern" engines. Flat tappet cams yes.
 
What happened? I thought Redline was closer to 1400 ppm zinc and phosphorus all along.

Hey, that's great if they are making a break in additive with 9000 zinc and 7500 phos. 10 ounces would boost a 6 quart system by about 400 ppm zinc.
 
WOW!!!! Redline reminds of these two Swedish twins I meet in the Netherlands!!! They had it every place it counted!!!LOL
 
WOW!!!! Redline reminds of these two Swedish twins I meet in the Netherlands!!! They had it every place it counted!!!LOL
 
hi johnny, i have always womdered that myself!! if you look on the back of the bottle it says recommended for:api sm/sl/sj/sh/sg/cf..i will ask dave again its been awhile and forgot what he said..as to tallpauls question redline did have a zinc level of 1400ppm until the sm oils came out then ot went down to 1230ppm now its back up to 1350ppm...i find all this starnge i will ask him on mon why all these changes small tho.
 
FWIW - here's the Redline VOA data available on BITOG
Product / Date / Lab / Moly / Boron / Calcium / Mag / Phos / Zinc
10W-30 / 4/11/2005 / Butler / 605 / 1 / 2869 / 10 / 1340 / 1407
10W-30 / 10/25/2002 / Blackstone / 613 / 15 / 2521 / 7 / 1028 / 1005
10W-40 / 4/19/2005 / Blackstone / 592 / 2852 / 7 / 1355 / 1360
10W-40 / 2/28/2005 / Butler / 658 / 0 / 2782 / 9 / 1371 / 1350
5W-30 / 2/28/2005 / Butler / 679 / 1 / 2917 / 16 / 1419 / 1421
5W-30 / 4/7/2004 / WearCheck Canada / 640 / 2.3 / 2634 / 9.7 / 1206 / 1442
5W-40 / 1/13/2003 / Blackstone / 694 / 20 / 2485 / 7 / 1426 / 1615
 
I've got a question for you zinc/phos guys. Were these additives removed from SM rated oils due to the effects that they have on the newer catalytic converters?

I've read that zinc can cause damage to the cat in the long run but how true is this?
 
Originally Posted By: globey
I've got a question for you zinc/phos guys. Were these additives removed from SM rated oils due to the effects that they have on the newer catalytic converters?

I've read that zinc can cause damage to the cat in the long run but how true is this?


Thats the popular claim, although no one has manged to point to any test that shows it has any effect.
 
Manufacturers are concerned because they are required to warranty the converters for 200k miles, so they lobby for restrictions in Phosphorous levels. Phosphorous and zinc are married to each other in oil formulations as they are both contained in ZDDP.

The manufacturers are probably worried about relatively low probability problems that could nevertheless have an effect when you look at the entire vehicle fleet. For an individual car the likelihood that it will cause premature cat failure, and that the failure will cause a failure in an actual inspection, is probably very slim to none.
 
Thanks guys. I've been wrestling with the idea of extending my drains by "rejuvenating" my oil with a fresh quart and an additive which is heavy on the ZDDP side. I am curious to see how this UOA would look in relation to my others. This is the reason I had asked. Thank you for the responses.
 
Originally Posted By: XPR
Thats the popular claim, although no one has manged to point to any test that shows it has any effect.


From the 2004 paper "Overview of EU Oil Quality and Emissions Legislation Developments" by Mike McCabe and Alison Fisher of Lubrizol Limited
Quote:
Emissions
The third factor influencing changes in engine lubricant requirements is the continuing move to reduce the potentially harmful exhaust emissions generated by vehicles. European Union legislation defines the maximum permissible emissions of a range of substances. The dramatic reduction in permissible emissions that Euro 4 introduces is resulting in vehicle manufacturers
developing new engine and aftertreatment systems that are, in turn, bringing new performance demands for engine lubricants.
Some vehicle manufacturers are beginning to set limits on the levels of Sulphated Ash, Phosphorus and Sulphur which are significantly lower than the levels seen in existing engine lubricants. As Sulphated Ash, Phosphorus and Sulphur relate to some of the most fundamental building blocks of engine lubricant
formulations, reductions in these are resulting in the development of new technology for additives and may restrict the types of base oils used to formulate engine lubricants.
***
CONCLUSIONS – THE IMPACT OF TRENDS ON ENGINE LUBRICANT FORMULATION
Impact of lower sulphated ash
Lowering the sulphated ash of a lubricant impacts the level of metal-containing detergents that can be used. Therefore, the detergency needs to be compensated with alternative detergent and dispersant technology.
Impact of lower phosphorus
The key lubricant component that contains phosphorus is zinc dialkyl dithio phosphate (ZDDP). ZDDP has been used since the 1950s as a very effective antiwear and antioxidation additive. As the levels of phosphorus are reduced to avoid poisoning effects on catalysts, ZDDP will need to reduced and replaced with
alternative phosphorous-free antiwear and antioxidant technology.
Impact of lower sulphur
ZDDP also contains sulphur and whilst level of sulphur in the engine lubricant will reduced as the level of ZDDP is reduced main contributor to sulphur is the lubricant basestock. API Group I basestocks can contain between 0.2%wt and 1.0%wt sulphur. Consequently, in lower sulphur lubricants the mineral basestocks will need be replaced by sulphur-free basestocks, as API Group III and Group IV. The majority viscosity modifiers contain mineral basestocks which will also be replaced sulphur-free basestocks. Some detergents also contain sulphur these will need to be kept to a minimum replaced with sulphur-free detergent chemistries.
Impact of trends on engine oil formulations
The move to aftertreatment system compatible engine lubricant technology represents a significant change in additive and lubricant formulating. New lubricant specifications are beginning to be introduced that restrict the level of sulphated ash, phosphorus and sulphur level and extensive research and investment is underway to develop and bring new chemistries to production. The challenge for the lubricants industry is to provide the fuel economy and extended drain benefits while formulating aftertreatment compatible engine lubricants with lower levels of sulphated ash, phosphorus and sulphur.
 
Last edited:
In most modern engines, the reduction in ZDP hasn't lead to an increase in engine wear. Some would ague the more expensive supplemental additives are better then using high levels of ZDP as the primary AW additive.
 
I am not against reduceing ZDDP but to be honest I just have not seen a reduced ZDDP additive chemistry in an OTC oil that has impressed me. I want nothing less then the protection I would get with 1200-1500PPMof ZDDP,2000-3000PPM of Calcium and about 100-200 PPM of Moly. Now when I see enough boron,antimony and moly to make up for the 500-800PPM drop in ZDDP and the accompaning drop in phos. I will sing fromt he moutain top! Oh the oil has to cost what previous synthetic chemistrys cost! Then I will sing from the montain tops!Until then I think it is a bunch of horse pucky!Seeing how not once in my lifetime have I had cat issues and no one in my family has either I think it is a non-issue for most! In fact even my Dad's 1995.5 Tacoma has a clean clear cat.! Now bear in mind that this thing has lived on a diet of M1 15W50 when it is warm out and M1 10W30 dureing the winter almost all it's life. M1 15W50 used to have a preety beefy additive package you would think it would have shown up buy now if it was going to show up.
 
Could it be that it is the better base stocks and not alternative anti-wear chemistry that has made SM oils so good despite ZDDP reductions? Do we have a way of knowing one way or another?

Does SM not now set minimum HTHS standards for the various grades? I do recall having read that many of the pre-SM oils had relatively poor HTHS. Perhaps those oils were shearing inside engines to a degree that high levels of ZDDP were required, but SM oils with high HTHS perform better under high stress and therefore much less anti-wear is required.
 
Quote:

Next time you talk with Dave, ask him how they can claim API SM with those zinc and phos levels.


Johnny, I don't have any RL of this vintage, but the bottles I have make no API claims; I suspect this "SM" brew doesn't either.

It simply says "Recommended for: API CF/CH-4/SH/SJ/SL"

Any person buying this oil isn't confused as to what they are getting....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom