Rotella T4 10w30 VOA
- Thread starter 53' Stude
- Start date
Yeah, today was a warm day thank heaven
Thanks for the report, looks better then imagined.
Thank you, a nice strong add pack for the flat tappet guys at 1300ppm Zn
As for the dual ratings (gas and diesel use) of normally-diesel-rated oils, that was in place for ages. Diesel (main-use) ratings were first, with the gasoline (secondary use) being mentioned second. If the main orientation was for gasoline-use, the diesel rating would be listed second.
Knowing how different the zddp level were for SN oils, a diesel-rated oil with the secondary "SN" rating just didn't look right, but some prior "loophole" in the API ratings system allowed that to happen. API closed that loophole in 2020 (I believe?). So although the referenced Rotella oils might not have changed one bit, the rating system did, which is when the "car" ratings for Rotella ended, by observation.
I've been watching the zddp levels of Rotella over the past years. In their 15W40, the zddp was more like 1400ppm. With the CK-4 oil, it went down to about 1200ppm, with a slight drop in TBN, as I recall from these forums. I remember the alleged drop into the 800s for zddp, but I also suspect that was a testing fluke as I only saw in posted once in the Virgin OIl Test Results. Although that alleged drop was widely-reported, I saved the pdfs of the VOAs on another laptop, for reference, as things progressed.
Interestingly, zddp levels of newer SN and SN+ oils' zddp levels have begun creeping back up toward 900ppm of late (posted din these forums). Castrol has an "SL" 5W30 oil that I can buy at the local Walmarts, with recent Euro approvals, too. Also listed on their website. "SL" was the last oil spec with approx 1000ppm of zddp.
I sold one of the GM/Chevy crate motors that was a special edition 427 several years ago. I got the installation instructions out of it to look at oil recommendations. This was during the "SM" oil era, which is what they recommended. Key difference is that this engine had been "fire-tested" at the engine plant, which also meant it had a GM cam and had been through the 30 minute dyno run at the engine plant before it was crated for sale, rather than being an un-fired, assembled engine, as some of the prior crate engines were, which also came with a cardboard disc where the oil filter would screw on).
When the whole issue of cam wear started, the Comp Cams recommendation was "Rotella or synthetic motor oil". "Rotella", obviously for its higher zddp content and "synthetic" for its great film strength, I suspect. That was the first time I remember seeing a diesel-rated oil recommended for use in a gasoline engine. That was also well before each cam manufacturer had their own-branded motor oil additive for cam wear decreases or oils like Amsoil Z-Rod were available. To me, finding an available-on-the-shelf motor oil with higher zddp content is better than ordering cases of it from Summit Racing or similar. But that's just my orientation, fwiw.
As most of the cam lobe failures were for "rebuilt" engines (although we had some Chevy 305s with "soft lobes" in the later 1980s, that also probably indicated a "replacement" cam was in the mix, too. Possibly with a less-than-OEM-spec parkerizing trearment? A level of treatment that was just fine with with higher zddp oils, but not so much with the lower zddp levels? Interesting, some of the major hot rod cam makers offered an additional level of Parkerizing on some of their cams, after they had also come out with their own oil additives, by observation.
Other camshaft lobe failures were also in the high-lift, high spring pressure High performance uses. Many Internet websites were generated for these things, by observation.
In more current times, the non-syn 15W40 diesel oils usually spec at 1200-1300ppm zddp, but the similar 5W40 syn diesel oils are slightly lower in zddp, by observation.
The mention of different types of zddp for gas and diesel oils is interesting. Is there a test to see which one is used, rather than "assumption by use"? Just curious.
As to the subject of oil use in engines designed in the '60s, other than the Ford inline 6-cyls, there seems to be a good bit of information on the Jeep 6-cyls, too, in various forums and such.
As to what the Shell reps said about oil viscosity. They ARE bound by what the OEM vehicle manufacturers recommended when the vehicle was new. The OEMs must also recommend the use of the same oil visosity they used to run their emissions and MPG tests, too! It used to be that a main oil viscosity was recommended, BUT in the fine print of the owner's manual, other alternatives were listed, some lighter-weight and some heavier-weight. "30" or 10W30 used to be the main recommendations, which evolved into the current 5W30 and such we now have. Usually oriented toward greater fuel economy and such, I suspect.
When I bought my '77 Camaro 305 new in 1977, the oil viscosity recommendations were anything from "30" (above 32 degrees F, usually) to a multi-vis, all the way to 20W-50. Later GM recommendations (later model years) cautioned against 20W-50 oils as the viscosity-improving additives might stack-up behind the rings and cause them to stick, resulting in higher oil consumption. By that time, my Camaro had logged well past 80K miles on Castrol GTX 20W-50 with no oil use issues. Our Pennzoil rep stated that in GM's testing, if they found one brand of oil that caused those issues, they could not recommend against that brand BUT could advocate against the use of that viscosity of motor oil. Possibly an early version of "lighter oils for better fuel economy", but in a different "wrapper"?
As I recall, zddp was NOT a consideration for catalytic converter life. OTHER additives were, though. The use of catalytic converters FIRST took out the use of lead (TEL) in gasoline as zddp levels were not considered. In the case of light-duty truck motors, the same engine in a car (cat converters) or a 1/2ton pickup (cat converters), or used in a HD2500 or 1-ton pickup (no cat converters) with the same oil viscosity and specs.
If you want to trace the progression of things, also follow the ILSAC and ACEA oil spec progression, as to which specs are related to emissions system items longevity issues. API doesn't appear to follow these issues quite so well, by observation.
Back to the OP's question of oil use in the Ford 6-cyl, zddp levels are a key thing for longevity in any flat-tappet engine, but they are typically less important for lower-lift/lighter valve spring pressure situations than for high-lift (as over .470" lift)/appropriately higher spring pressures) situations.
I've run across some oil analysis reports from back in the middle 1960s and zddp levels are quite varied as to brand and such. Even in the era of higher performance stock motors. BUT this was also an era when oil change intervals were usually 3000-4000 miles. When a good quality multi-vis oil was about$1.00/quart or less and syn oil was only used in specific applications (as in the Artic Circles).
In the mean time, monitoring the VOAs and UOAs in these forums can be important. For historical items, head back toward the 40+ pages.
Sorry for the length. Hope this might help explain some things. My experiences and observations, over the decades.
CBODY67
Knowing how different the zddp level were for SN oils, a diesel-rated oil with the secondary "SN" rating just didn't look right, but some prior "loophole" in the API ratings system allowed that to happen. API closed that loophole in 2020 (I believe?). So although the referenced Rotella oils might not have changed one bit, the rating system did, which is when the "car" ratings for Rotella ended, by observation.
I've been watching the zddp levels of Rotella over the past years. In their 15W40, the zddp was more like 1400ppm. With the CK-4 oil, it went down to about 1200ppm, with a slight drop in TBN, as I recall from these forums. I remember the alleged drop into the 800s for zddp, but I also suspect that was a testing fluke as I only saw in posted once in the Virgin OIl Test Results. Although that alleged drop was widely-reported, I saved the pdfs of the VOAs on another laptop, for reference, as things progressed.
Interestingly, zddp levels of newer SN and SN+ oils' zddp levels have begun creeping back up toward 900ppm of late (posted din these forums). Castrol has an "SL" 5W30 oil that I can buy at the local Walmarts, with recent Euro approvals, too. Also listed on their website. "SL" was the last oil spec with approx 1000ppm of zddp.
I sold one of the GM/Chevy crate motors that was a special edition 427 several years ago. I got the installation instructions out of it to look at oil recommendations. This was during the "SM" oil era, which is what they recommended. Key difference is that this engine had been "fire-tested" at the engine plant, which also meant it had a GM cam and had been through the 30 minute dyno run at the engine plant before it was crated for sale, rather than being an un-fired, assembled engine, as some of the prior crate engines were, which also came with a cardboard disc where the oil filter would screw on).
When the whole issue of cam wear started, the Comp Cams recommendation was "Rotella or synthetic motor oil". "Rotella", obviously for its higher zddp content and "synthetic" for its great film strength, I suspect. That was the first time I remember seeing a diesel-rated oil recommended for use in a gasoline engine. That was also well before each cam manufacturer had their own-branded motor oil additive for cam wear decreases or oils like Amsoil Z-Rod were available. To me, finding an available-on-the-shelf motor oil with higher zddp content is better than ordering cases of it from Summit Racing or similar. But that's just my orientation, fwiw.
As most of the cam lobe failures were for "rebuilt" engines (although we had some Chevy 305s with "soft lobes" in the later 1980s, that also probably indicated a "replacement" cam was in the mix, too. Possibly with a less-than-OEM-spec parkerizing trearment? A level of treatment that was just fine with with higher zddp oils, but not so much with the lower zddp levels? Interesting, some of the major hot rod cam makers offered an additional level of Parkerizing on some of their cams, after they had also come out with their own oil additives, by observation.
Other camshaft lobe failures were also in the high-lift, high spring pressure High performance uses. Many Internet websites were generated for these things, by observation.
In more current times, the non-syn 15W40 diesel oils usually spec at 1200-1300ppm zddp, but the similar 5W40 syn diesel oils are slightly lower in zddp, by observation.
The mention of different types of zddp for gas and diesel oils is interesting. Is there a test to see which one is used, rather than "assumption by use"? Just curious.
As to the subject of oil use in engines designed in the '60s, other than the Ford inline 6-cyls, there seems to be a good bit of information on the Jeep 6-cyls, too, in various forums and such.
As to what the Shell reps said about oil viscosity. They ARE bound by what the OEM vehicle manufacturers recommended when the vehicle was new. The OEMs must also recommend the use of the same oil visosity they used to run their emissions and MPG tests, too! It used to be that a main oil viscosity was recommended, BUT in the fine print of the owner's manual, other alternatives were listed, some lighter-weight and some heavier-weight. "30" or 10W30 used to be the main recommendations, which evolved into the current 5W30 and such we now have. Usually oriented toward greater fuel economy and such, I suspect.
When I bought my '77 Camaro 305 new in 1977, the oil viscosity recommendations were anything from "30" (above 32 degrees F, usually) to a multi-vis, all the way to 20W-50. Later GM recommendations (later model years) cautioned against 20W-50 oils as the viscosity-improving additives might stack-up behind the rings and cause them to stick, resulting in higher oil consumption. By that time, my Camaro had logged well past 80K miles on Castrol GTX 20W-50 with no oil use issues. Our Pennzoil rep stated that in GM's testing, if they found one brand of oil that caused those issues, they could not recommend against that brand BUT could advocate against the use of that viscosity of motor oil. Possibly an early version of "lighter oils for better fuel economy", but in a different "wrapper"?
As I recall, zddp was NOT a consideration for catalytic converter life. OTHER additives were, though. The use of catalytic converters FIRST took out the use of lead (TEL) in gasoline as zddp levels were not considered. In the case of light-duty truck motors, the same engine in a car (cat converters) or a 1/2ton pickup (cat converters), or used in a HD2500 or 1-ton pickup (no cat converters) with the same oil viscosity and specs.
If you want to trace the progression of things, also follow the ILSAC and ACEA oil spec progression, as to which specs are related to emissions system items longevity issues. API doesn't appear to follow these issues quite so well, by observation.
Back to the OP's question of oil use in the Ford 6-cyl, zddp levels are a key thing for longevity in any flat-tappet engine, but they are typically less important for lower-lift/lighter valve spring pressure situations than for high-lift (as over .470" lift)/appropriately higher spring pressures) situations.
I've run across some oil analysis reports from back in the middle 1960s and zddp levels are quite varied as to brand and such. Even in the era of higher performance stock motors. BUT this was also an era when oil change intervals were usually 3000-4000 miles. When a good quality multi-vis oil was about$1.00/quart or less and syn oil was only used in specific applications (as in the Artic Circles).
In the mean time, monitoring the VOAs and UOAs in these forums can be important. For historical items, head back toward the 40+ pages.
Sorry for the length. Hope this might help explain some things. My experiences and observations, over the decades.
CBODY67
Found an article at www.enginebuildermag.com/2012/03/zddp-when-where-what-why-how/ Dated from March, 2012.
Some interesting information on "zddp plating", zddp history, zddp types, oil ratings and zddp levels. Plus mention of the cat converter and zddp issue. I'm wondering if the phosphorus levels and zddp levels might be considered to be "the same" as to longevity of the cat converters? Or if the zddp levels might not have been an issue with the older, larger converters than for the more recent smaller ones (relative to engine size)? Of course, an emission standards tighten, some items which might not have been important in earlier times now become issues?
FWIW,
CBODY67
Some interesting information on "zddp plating", zddp history, zddp types, oil ratings and zddp levels. Plus mention of the cat converter and zddp issue. I'm wondering if the phosphorus levels and zddp levels might be considered to be "the same" as to longevity of the cat converters? Or if the zddp levels might not have been an issue with the older, larger converters than for the more recent smaller ones (relative to engine size)? Of course, an emission standards tighten, some items which might not have been important in earlier times now become issues?
FWIW,
CBODY67
Yes , the “API loophole” is officially closed on May 1, 2021 ( a few weeks from now). SN will be obsolete and no motor oil with more than 800 ppm phosphorus will get a SP rating. Thanks for your post.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2014
- Messages
- 4,118
Might save a buck and switch the generators and lawn tractor and mowed to this
Can i borrow a gallon or so?Yeah, I have like over 29 gallons of it too
Similar threads
