I've been wondering if the ZDDP will be cut down in the high mileage oils just it has been in the standard PCMO's in the SM class.
Will the "high mileage" SM oils still have lots of ZDDP?
- Thread starter fuel tanker man
- Start date
- Status
Here is Pennzoil's HM data sheet. It says this stuff meets SM... but it doesn't give ZDDP numbers...
http://www.pzlqs.com/Tech/Pdsheet/DomesticMarketing/EngineOils/Pdf/HighMileageVehicle.pdf
http://www.pzlqs.com/Tech/Pdsheet/DomesticMarketing/EngineOils/Pdf/HighMileageVehicle.pdf
I guess what I'm wondering is if the oil marketers can put in the same SL levels of ZDDP and call it SM rated and get away with it because it's a "high mileage" oil...
If they can, they aren't! We've already seen Pennzoil HM go from a super beefy oil to a weeny oil as far as additive levels are concerned.
I just changed the oil in my '01 Saturn to the Pennzoil 5w30 HM (added LC). Will have to do a UOA on it when the time comes (probably Oct-Nov).
The Citgo Ultralife SL was supposed to have 1200 ppm zddp, so if it has gone SM I would hope it still has 1000. Worth checking out, but the stuff is hard to find.
Chevron high Mlieage still says SL on the bottle.
From my UOA earlier this year the additives weren't spectacular, after 3K there was 60ppm moly, 96 boron,1516 calcium,624 phosphorous, and 759 zinc.
Nevertheless, the results were very good.
From my UOA earlier this year the additives weren't spectacular, after 3K there was 60ppm moly, 96 boron,1516 calcium,624 phosphorous, and 759 zinc.
Nevertheless, the results were very good.
Maybe so, I haven't seen any degradation in performance based on the 2 uoa I've done:
Penn HM SL & SM UOA
Good point Roger.
None of the SM oils can contain as much ZDDP as did the SL oils - that's the primary reason why the new API rating was established. The reason? The automakers're convinced expensive to replace under warranty catalytic converters were being "poisioned" by the high phosphorous content in SL oils from the common ZDDP levels. I believe the EPA was also voicing concerns about that phosphorous being spewed into the environment. When SN is released in the next three or four years, ZDDP levels in oil will take another, more severe, header. Molybdenum helps the SM oils maintain engine protection. So does nearly universal reliance on Group II base stocks with some refiners even throwing in Group II+ or Group III content. It seems hard for some folks to grasp the notion that there are formula compensations involved that are both engine and environment friendly despite seeing consistant supporting evidence being reported on BITOG in UOAs on these new oils.
Ray - Concerning the notion of poisoning of converters via ZDDP levels in the oil...was this replacement under warr. due to increasing state testing of motor vehicle emissions? Here in VT i haven't noticed emission testing being done by receiving any sort of print out or such. Perhaps then converters have been "failing" all along without anyone ever really knowing.
As for why many still fail to embrace the new SM additive levels dispite the UOA's, I personally feel it's related to the fact of the ways that one could have judged prior oil quality before use in their application aside from viscosity and so forth was to reference the additive levels. The basestock is indeed one thing, but when searching for fail safes when one's conscience expects the worst, it comes back to the list of ingreadients! There's obviously more to oil than what basestock group and additive listing by VOA's and viscosity that the average person here see's. There's an evolution of sorts going on here, and it all plays out in a harsh, mirco scale that's nothing of the likes we average people see. Simply, one is working with what they have personally learned thus far, and will eventually have to experiment with the latest offerings dispite the anx'ed sense about it all.
It's a changing world dispite any efforts to keep things the same.
As for why many still fail to embrace the new SM additive levels dispite the UOA's, I personally feel it's related to the fact of the ways that one could have judged prior oil quality before use in their application aside from viscosity and so forth was to reference the additive levels. The basestock is indeed one thing, but when searching for fail safes when one's conscience expects the worst, it comes back to the list of ingreadients! There's obviously more to oil than what basestock group and additive listing by VOA's and viscosity that the average person here see's. There's an evolution of sorts going on here, and it all plays out in a harsh, mirco scale that's nothing of the likes we average people see. Simply, one is working with what they have personally learned thus far, and will eventually have to experiment with the latest offerings dispite the anx'ed sense about it all.
It's a changing world dispite any efforts to keep things the same.
I have no information whether catalytic converters were actually failing. I merely restated speculation that the domestic manufacturers in general, and GM in particular offered as justification in removing then current levels of ZDDP. They were supported (coerced?) by the EPA. I agree completely with your take on the psychology of change. If the Second Coming, freedom from hunger, and world peace occurred today, you can take to the bank that there'd still be complaints from some that it wasn't the natural order of things.
I feel relatively confident that the new oil formulations will protect regular passenger car engines. Generally speaking, the typical passenger car engine does not need much EP additive to get along; the very extreme pressure points have been engineered out of most new designs.
My reasons for asking about ZDDP levels in SM high mileage oils are:
1. I did not know (and still don't) whether the "high mileage" moniker will allow the motor oil producers to add more ZDDP to the SM oils much in the same way they do now--in spite of the SM rating.
2. I have been using SL rated 20W50 oil in my Harley Davidson engine, and this engine makes strong use of ZDDP in the oil, as there are extreme pressure points in the long push rod design.
In a directly related matter, at least two producers of high performance cams indicate the cam warranties will be void if synthetic oils are used. It has presumably been shown in tests that these steep lobed cams, which must endure extreme pressure on the lobes as they operate, show undue wear with synthetic based oils--even if the ZDDP is plentiful in those syn oils. The currently disposition is that some synthetic base stocks actually compete with the ZDDP on metal surfaces, thereby crowding out the ZDDP and leaving instead a thinner, less capable EP layer of "whatever."
The model of understanding, or theory as to "why," must always fit reality. The reality is that Weber and Crower both recommend against the use of synthetic oils. The reality is that these companies have tested their products to determine what works best. They say that the ZDDP layer is much stronger when it's put down by a petroleum base which doesn't compete for surface with the ZDDP.
So my reason for the segue into synthetic oils (and some cam maker's recommendations against them) is that these makers believe that the ZDDP layer is very important in extreme pressure situations.
Some here at BITOG want to question the findings of these two cam makers. That's their prerogative in this free world.
(And keep in mind that there are certainly pedigreed individuals in the R&D sections of these cam companies--so let's not start waving around credentials). Studied individuals often disagree...
But for my part, I know that ZDDP does work, and only that moly might work. I think if moly alone were good enough for all EP applications, Redline wouldn't be putting ZDDP in thier oils, in addition to all of the moly. Other racing oil producers are doing much the same thing; the moly is there in spades, but so is the zinc and phos...
Dan
My reasons for asking about ZDDP levels in SM high mileage oils are:
1. I did not know (and still don't) whether the "high mileage" moniker will allow the motor oil producers to add more ZDDP to the SM oils much in the same way they do now--in spite of the SM rating.
2. I have been using SL rated 20W50 oil in my Harley Davidson engine, and this engine makes strong use of ZDDP in the oil, as there are extreme pressure points in the long push rod design.
In a directly related matter, at least two producers of high performance cams indicate the cam warranties will be void if synthetic oils are used. It has presumably been shown in tests that these steep lobed cams, which must endure extreme pressure on the lobes as they operate, show undue wear with synthetic based oils--even if the ZDDP is plentiful in those syn oils. The currently disposition is that some synthetic base stocks actually compete with the ZDDP on metal surfaces, thereby crowding out the ZDDP and leaving instead a thinner, less capable EP layer of "whatever."
The model of understanding, or theory as to "why," must always fit reality. The reality is that Weber and Crower both recommend against the use of synthetic oils. The reality is that these companies have tested their products to determine what works best. They say that the ZDDP layer is much stronger when it's put down by a petroleum base which doesn't compete for surface with the ZDDP.
So my reason for the segue into synthetic oils (and some cam maker's recommendations against them) is that these makers believe that the ZDDP layer is very important in extreme pressure situations.
Some here at BITOG want to question the findings of these two cam makers. That's their prerogative in this free world.
But for my part, I know that ZDDP does work, and only that moly might work. I think if moly alone were good enough for all EP applications, Redline wouldn't be putting ZDDP in thier oils, in addition to all of the moly. Other racing oil producers are doing much the same thing; the moly is there in spades, but so is the zinc and phos...
Dan
ONLY the xw-20 and xw-30 "Certified For Gas Engines", grades have the 800 ppm limit on Phosphorus...the xw-40 and xw-50 grades can use any amount of ZDDP they care to put in. The idea is that these are most often used in older vehicles out of warranty....
TS
TS
The upper limit for phosphorous in SM oils is 0.08% by weight. If blenders are adding more than that in labled SM oils, they're afoul of the API which audits randomly and has the authority to have stock pulled from retailer shelves and impose additional sanctions. Molybdenum is definitely beyond the "might work" stage of demonstrable performance, nor is it new on the scene. ZDDP was attactive for at least 3 1/2 decades for two reasons: it's cheap and effective. (Oh, and did I mention that it's cheap?)
I spoke to Valvoline this morning. The tech informed me that there won't be any reductions in ZDDP in their Maxlife (high mileage) oils.
Further, and quite interestingly...
He said these oils would not be re-formulated to meet SM standards, and that they do not meet SL standards either!
I checked their website. Looks like Maxlife oils are currently rated SJ. And they will presumably continue to be rated SJ.
http://www.valvoline.com/pages/products/product_detail.asp?product=7
Click on "product specs" on the left of the screen and you'll see the ratings...
EDIT!!!
I called back and got a gal this time. She says the Maxlife will indeed be rated SM...
This is ridiculous. I wish companies would get their ducks in a row. If you're going to answer a tech line, it might help if you knew something.
I'll keep researching this...
Dan
[ August 24, 2005, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: fuel tanker man ]
Further, and quite interestingly...
He said these oils would not be re-formulated to meet SM standards, and that they do not meet SL standards either!
I checked their website. Looks like Maxlife oils are currently rated SJ. And they will presumably continue to be rated SJ.
http://www.valvoline.com/pages/products/product_detail.asp?product=7
Click on "product specs" on the left of the screen and you'll see the ratings...
EDIT!!!
I called back and got a gal this time. She says the Maxlife will indeed be rated SM...
This is ridiculous. I wish companies would get their ducks in a row. If you're going to answer a tech line, it might help if you knew something.
I'll keep researching this...
Dan
[ August 24, 2005, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: fuel tanker man ]
Dope with GM EOS or Torco MPZ additive - depending if you want moly in the mix or not.
OR
Read the "cars over 200K" thread and get grounded again.
IMO
MAT
OR
Read the "cars over 200K" thread and get grounded again.
IMO
MAT
They're also only rated "SL". This thread concerned "SM" oils.
Believe it when you actually see it on the shelves and the current product data sheets list more than 0.08% phosphorous by weight. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that little "duckie" wasn't on the same page upstairs.
- Status
Similar threads
