Royal Purple Oil Experience - 2005 Mustang GT

[glxpassat]

Originally Posted By: webfors
I like a previous response which suggested any SM rated oil might show the same results as the M1 cams. If so, it begs the question, why use a high priced syn like M1?


Well, there have been many SM UOA's that don't have the high iron count like M1 typically does, Pennzoil Platinum being just one. One of the UOA guru's who used to be on this site told me a few years ago that M1 was not delivering for the cost.

 

[webfors]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
If RP refused to go SM because of the ZDDP reduction, then they deserve credit. After all, how easy would it be for them to reduce ZDDP? Heck, it would probably increase their profit margin a little.

Originally Posted By: webfors
I like a previous response which suggested any SM rated oil might show the same results as the M1 cams. If so, it begs the question, why use a high priced syn like M1?


Deposit control, reduced volatility, extended OCIs, etc...



Cross off the extended OCIs, in this application, since these owners ran dino length intervals.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: glxpassat
Originally Posted By: webfors
I like a previous response which suggested any SM rated oil might show the same results as the M1 cams. If so, it begs the question, why use a high priced syn like M1?


Well, there have been many SM UOA's that don't have the high iron count like M1 typically does, Pennzoil Platinum being just one.


I would put money on PP not keeping those cams in the condition RP did.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: glxpassat
Originally Posted By: webfors
I like a previous response which suggested any SM rated oil might show the same results as the M1 cams. If so, it begs the question, why use a high priced syn like M1?


Well, there have been many SM UOA's that don't have the high iron count like M1 typically does, Pennzoil Platinum being just one. One of the UOA guru's who used to be on this site told me a few years ago that M1 was not delivering for the cost.


Well remember the OP measured the two cams and there was no actual difference in wear just a visual cosmetic difference. Although what's thrown me off is people posted the journal diameters for the cams to be ~1.02" and I thought the OP said the cams measured 55.52 mm or something, so about 2.02". I must be missing something, but that's not the point I wanted to make really.

Anyway, this comparison of Mobil 1 GF4 oil against RP SL or whatever race oil is not apples to apples as has been mentioned before. However, Valvoline advertises that they have 4 times less valetrain wear than Mobil 1 and PP claims no other synthetic gives better valvetrain wear results. I'm not one to criticise Mobil 1 but I don't know what to believe really.

 

[2k05gt]

The EPA has forced the reduction or elimination of ZDDP (Zinc Dialkyl-Dithio-Phosphate) from engine oil in January 1st 2007.
I read that All Synthetic Oils had reduced or eliminated it all together, and if you want ZDDP you need to add it in.

Also Will ZDDP degrade High-Flow Cats?

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: glxpassat
Originally Posted By: webfors
I like a previous response which suggested any SM rated oil might show the same results as the M1 cams. If so, it begs the question, why use a high priced syn like M1?


Well, there have been many SM UOA's that don't have the high iron count like M1 typically does, Pennzoil Platinum being just one. One of the UOA guru's who used to be on this site told me a few years ago that M1 was not delivering for the cost.


Well remember the OP measured the two cams and there was no actual difference in wear just a visual cosmetic difference. Although what's thrown me off is people posted the journal diameters for the cams to be ~1.02" and I thought the OP said the cams measured 55.52 mm or something, so about 2.02". I must be missing something, but that's not the point I wanted to make really.

Anyway, this comparison of Mobil 1 GF4 oil against RP SL or whatever race oil is not apples to apples as has been mentioned before. However, Valvoline advertises that they have 4 times less valetrain wear than Mobil 1 and PP claims no other synthetic gives better valvetrain wear results. I'm not one to criticise Mobil 1 but I don't know what to believe really.


I did not Measure the Journal Diameters yet, I anly measured the wear on the Cam Lobes.

Edit..
I just Measured the Journals.
The M1 40,000 miles CAM showed 1.126" Except for Journal #3 1.125"
the Other two CAMS RP and Lower Milage M1 showed 1.127"

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: 2k05gt
The EPA has forced the reduction or elimination of ZDDP (Zinc Dialkyl-Dithio-Phosphate) from engine oil in January 1st 2007.


Only in API SM rated oils, 800 ppm limit.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
If RP refused to go SM because of the ZDDP reduction, then they deserve credit. After all, how easy would it be for them to reduce ZDDP? Heck, it would probably increase their profit margin a little.

If the ZDDP made a difference, then we should credit the ZDDP. The fact that it was Royal Purple's oil is entirely incidental. Any decently formulated oil should be able to do the same.

Plus, since Royal Purple isn't even trying to meet the same specs, it'd be silly to compare it to Mobil 1.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: 2k05gt
The EPA has forced the reduction or elimination of ZDDP (Zinc Dialkyl-Dithio-Phosphate) from engine oil in January 1st 2007.
I read that All Synthetic Oils had reduced or eliminated it all together, and if you want ZDDP you need to add it in.


All SM oils below 10W30 and non HD/diesel have a minimum and maximum level of Zddp.

Quote:
Also Will ZDDP degrade High-Flow Cats?


Well the phosphorus in ZDDP is supposedly degrading to Cats if oil is consumed, but oil had higher ZDDP before and cats and no one really noticed a problem. Besides an engine good condition burns little oil and who cares about Catslife verses engine protection besides the EPA and tree huggers lol?

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: glxpassat
there have been many SM UOA's that don't have the high iron count like M1 typically does

The "high iron" argument has been pretty soundly dismantled. Please stop parroting it.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: 2k05gt


I did not Measure the Journal Diameters yet, I anly measured the wear on the Cam Lobes.
I will get the Journal stats to you Soon.


But are the cam lobes that much bigger than the journals? Usually they are smaller, but I actually don't know if that's true on a Modular Ford. Am I correct that you measured the lobes at ~55.52 mm or `2.02 in.? What size are the cam lobes, anyone?

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
If RP refused to go SM because of the ZDDP reduction, then they deserve credit. After all, how easy would it be for them to reduce ZDDP? Heck, it would probably increase their profit margin a little.

If the ZDDP made a difference, then we should credit the ZDDP. The fact that it was Royal Purple's oil is entirely incidental. Any decently formulated oil should be able to do the same.

Plus, since Royal Purple isn't even trying to meet the same specs, it'd be silly to compare it to Mobil 1.


I believe the OP, I mean he is providing a lot of info. But I'm having a hard time with this shiny cams thing. I think the difference is the ZDDP level or one of the EP additives but doesn't even zddp leave marks normally anyway?

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: 2k05gt
The EPA has forced the reduction or elimination of ZDDP (Zinc Dialkyl-Dithio-Phosphate) from engine oil in January 1st 2007.
I read that All Synthetic Oils had reduced or eliminated it all together, and if you want ZDDP you need to add it in.

This is a complex and contentious issue. In a nutshell, as I understand it:

- ZDDP is becoming less and less necessary for modern engines.
- New additive technologies can do more with a given amount of ZDDP.
- Substitutes for ZDDP are becoming available.

The API SM spec compensates for the lower ZDDP limits by being stricter than SL in terms of overall wear levels, which means an SM oil will rely more on its base stock or other aspects of its additive package. This is why you probably won't notice much (if any) extra wear with Mobil 1, even if the cams lose their mirror finish.

If for some reason you really want more ZDDP, it's best to buy an oil that already has it. Adding it in separately might throw off the oil's chemistry.


Originally Posted By: 2k05gt
Also Will ZDDP degrade High-Flow Cats?

It'll degrade any cat, really.

 

[2k05gt]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: 2k05gt


I did not Measure the Journal Diameters yet, I anly measured the wear on the Cam Lobes.
I will get the Journal stats to you Soon.


But are the cam lobes that much bigger than the journals? Usually they are smaller, but I actually don't know if that's true on a Modular Ford. Am I correct that you measured the lobes at ~55.52 mm or `2.02 in.? What size are the cam lobes, anyone?

Let me change the Digital Caliper to Inches and let me check.. BRB

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: 2k05gt
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: 2k05gt


I did not Measure the Journal Diameters yet, I anly measured the wear on the Cam Lobes.
I will get the Journal stats to you Soon.


But are the cam lobes that much bigger than the journals? Usually they are smaller, but I actually don't know if that's true on a Modular Ford. Am I correct that you measured the lobes at ~55.52 mm or `2.02 in.? What size are the cam lobes, anyone?

Let me change the Digital Caliper to Inches and let me check.. BRB


OK thanks. Why were you giving us the dimensions in Metric? We are mostly Americans here

j/k. I know, metric is the standard now in SAE.

 

[2k05gt]

Journals ( 1.126 Inches)

1.989 Inches Cam Lobes

The M1 Cam Journals did show some wear the RP Journals did not.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: 2k05gt
Journals ( 1.126 Inches)

1.989 Inches Cam Lobes

The M1 Cam Journals did show some wear the RP Journals did not.


OK thanks. I just remembered these Cams are assemble on a hollow shaft with powdered metal lobes. Total brain [censored]. So now you are saying there is a difference in actual wear on the journals but not the lobes? That's not what I'd expected. What is the difference, do you know?

 

[mva]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: glxpassat
there have been many SM UOA's that don't have the high iron count like M1 typically does

The "high iron" argument has been pretty soundly dismantled. Please stop parroting it.


M1 does not seem to be as good an oil as other high end products such as RP:

There is significant evidence that M1 5W30 doesn't pass Seq-IV tests due to higher cam wear than the test limit.

There is significant evidence of higher iron in many M1 UOA's than many other full-synthetics.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...312#Post1321312

Now we also have a case where disassembly shows photographic evidence of higher cam wear with M1 than RP.

 

[2k05gt]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: 2k05gt
Journals ( 1.126 Inches)

1.989 Inches Cam Lobes

The M1 Cam Journals did show some wear the RP Journals did not.


OK thanks. I just remembered these Cams are assemble on a hollow shaft with powdered metal lobes. Total brain [censored]. So now you are saying there is a difference in actual wear on the journals but not the lobes? That's not what I'd expected. What is the difference, do you know?


Edit..
I Measured the Journals.
The M1 40,000 miles CAM showed 1.126" Except for Journal #3 1.125" The Factory Specs say 1.126-1.127 inches
so there is some wear on this one.. This could be due to a manufacture issue, dirt in assembly or over tighten the caps?
who knows, It's also on the journal that is showing Excessive scaring.

the Other two CAMS RP and Lower Milage M1 showed 1.127"
So again no real wear to speak of, there is noticable scaring on the journals on both M1 Cams and little to none on the RP Cams.

I just got an email from another friend, he wants me to help him remove his Valve covers and take them to a powder coating shop, he's getting them done in Red to match his car... Anyway, He also uses RP and has for Many years and has about 60K, I am going to shoot some Pics of the cams while in the car and take a few measurments this weekend.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: mva
M1 does not seem to be as good an oil as other high end products such as RP:

There is significant evidence that M1 5W30 doesn't pass Seq-IV tests due to higher cam wear than the test limit.

There is significant evidence of higher iron in many M1 UOA's than many other full-synthetics.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...312#Post1321312

Now we also have a case where disassembly shows photographic evidence of higher cam wear with M1 than RP.

I'm sorry, but to believe you I have to imagine that API, ILSAC, ACEA, and all those OEMs are letting Mobil 1 keep its certifications for no good reason.

Not to mention the fact that you have no statistical analysis on your data to back up your claims, and the "photographic evidence" in this thread involves just three cams driven in largely unknown conditions and doesn't really say anything definitive.

 

[2k05gt]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
If RP refused to go SM because of the ZDDP reduction, then they deserve credit. After all, how easy would it be for them to reduce ZDDP? Heck, it would probably increase their profit margin a little.

If the ZDDP made a difference, then we should credit the ZDDP. The fact that it was Royal Purple's oil is entirely incidental. Any decently formulated oil should be able to do the same.

Plus, since Royal Purple isn't even trying to meet the same specs, it'd be silly to compare it to Mobil 1.


I believe the OP, I mean he is providing a lot of info. But I'm having a hard time with this shiny cams thing. I think the difference is the ZDDP level or one of the EP additives but doesn't even zddp leave marks normally anyway?

Isn't Zink a soft metal? if it's softer than steel why would it leave marks, I thought the purpose of ZDDP was to prevent wear and create a cusion for flat tappet valve train.