ZDDP, API, and ILSAC

[Jaybird]

Let me be the first to welcome you to BITOG, 1bolt.

I appreciate your trying to "bring me up to speed" so to speak on the issue here, but I have a fair grasp of it at present.
Using hot rod mags as a point of reference is not what I consider to be good information to use. Sure, their followings tend to believe all they print, and will often make reference to them in their arguments, but I see them as a whole lot of fluffy nothing.
Albeit them great stool tools...
Take for example the wise words from one of the articles you suppplied for me to study...this is about all we get concerning the issue:
Quote:
The reduction first started in the mid-'80s, and it has been a gradualprocess, but the latest API SM and GF-4 specs have reduced ZDDP contentto such an extent that the new oils may not provide adequate protectionfor older, flat-tappet-equipped vehicles running nonstock, performancecams and valvetrains. And it will only get worse; projected future oilspec revisions will likely reduce ZDDP content even more.
Some guy saying the new oils "may not" have enough ZDDP is what I'm supposed to get started with?
The same guy (from a cam company) that gave the mag this interview also stated that the cam companies were NOT putting out bad product. Seems he may have been incorrect on at least one item, huh? Again, a marketeer, with no apparent credentials in tribology, leading another general wisdom campaign. -Answering to the benefit of his product line.

Quote:
How about the fact that Mobil 1 High Mileage -- a new oil -- has an SL rating? Because it's got higher ZDDP levels than the current API SM standards dictate? Why in the world would M1 add ZDDP back into it products when it could get the latest SM rating? Is it because they know a handfull of car geeks will find out and start using it in their flat tappet equipped enthusiast cars and trucks? Or because they know ZDDP is necessary for older flat tappet vehicles. BTW no big "CONTAINS MORE ZDDP" blurb on the bottle here either.
SInce all you are doing is guessing, let me also take a guess....
The formulator provides an increased add of ZDDP in a "high mileage" oil to increase it's ability to better withstand oxidative thickening. They sure don't have gearheads passing around rumors in mind with their formulating. But them, I'm just guessing here...

 

[Towel_Rail]

It's a multifactoral problem. For a pushrod engine to have a long, healthy life, everything needs to be right: good metallurgy, grinding, and hardening of the camshaft and lifters, non-excessive spring pressures, clean oil with enough AW/EP additives, proper break-in, and avoidance of valve float. Take away any of those, and you risk premature valvetrain wear.

It's not just happening to V-8 hot-rodders, either. Air-cooled Volkswagen guys with otherwise stock engines are seeing pitted lifters and worn cams long before their time.

So far, CJ-4 is showing good wear numbers on OHC engines, but I don't think it has proven itself on pushrod engines yet.

- Scott

 

[1bolt]

At risk of sounding like I'm wearing the tin foil hat, I think the EPA is putting pressure on... Why? Because A) the Oil companies are very quiet about it B) the oil companies are not rushing "hot rod" Oil's to the market... Even specialty oil companies... NONE of them are marketing a "flat tappet Oil" or a "high ZDDP" oil... Despite that fact that everyone from hot rodders to Jeepers, to drag racers, to Muscle car guys, to Porsche enthusiasts are yapping about it on the Internet.

You would think SOME of them would at least have Older pre-ZDDP reduction API standard formulations (like M1 and their recent retrogressive SL rated High Mileage blend). [censored]
And the biggest clue of them all? NOT ONE ZDDP advertized oil booster from any major snake oil company, even STP blue has ZDDP in such small print that it's hard to tell it says ZDDP.

Ahh what can I say? If the phrase "the EPA is changing our motor oil" isn't enough to worry you, nothing else matters.

 

[Pat in Speedway]

Originally Posted By: Towel_Rail
When I decided to buy some STP Red, I had to buy the case online. No stores in my area have it on the shelves, just the Blue. Wouldn't surprise me if the EPA is pressuring them to discontinue or change the formulations.


I think you're correct. My brother is on a Chevelle forum and a guy there had several VOAs done, including STP Red. Looks like its been stripped clean!

A few VOAs.....

 

[1bolt]

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
Let me be the first to welcome you to BITOG, 1bolt.


Thanks, hopefully you wont take my disagreement with you personally.

Quote:

I appreciate your trying to "bring me up to speed" so to speak on the issue here, but I have a fair grasp of it at present.


Not appearently, if you think ZDDP's only function is as an anti-oxident. Anyway you seemed to be asking the question.

I notice you had nothing to say about the second link which is far more in depth (admitedly still an article by someone you may or may not find credible). The shear amount of VOA's alone make it informative reading, the technical references and links should be more than enough for someone open minded to make up their own mind based on multiple diverse sources.

The hod rod article is intended as a primer, from a reasonably knowledgable source about cars.

An Oil expert is not necessarily also a physics expert or an Engineering expert. Knowing chemistry does not necessarily translate into knowing what a lifter and camshaft does inside an engine. Nor how much pressure heat and friction are going on at the tiny point where they meet...

Quote:
Some guy saying the new oils "may not" have enough ZDDP is what I'm supposed to get started with?
The same guy (from a cam company) that gave the mag this interview also stated that the cam companies were NOT putting out bad product. Seems he may have been incorrect on at least one item, huh? Again, a marketeer, with no apparent credentials in tribology, leading another general wisdom campaign. -Answering to the benefit of his product line.


Well that's certainly an interesting "spin" you're putting on it... so an article that happens to contain quotes from a Cam manufacturer is now an interview from a cam company and a "general wisdom" campaign That's a wonderful way to discredit something anonymously without actually arguing any facts.

Quote:
SInce all you are doing is guessing, let me also take a guess....
The formulator provides an increased add of ZDDP in a "high mileage" oil to increase it's ability to better withstand oxidative thickening.


Would oxidative thickening be something exlusive to "high mileage" vehicles? Anyway thanks for the welcome.

 

[1bolt]

Originally Posted By: Jaybird

Studies such as this one tend to show this not to be the case:
https://shop.sae.org/technical/papers/952344


What vehicles were in the fleet is my first question. 1991? What are the chances they had high lift cams, and stiff valve springs? Are they OHV pushrod motors, OHC, Or roller valve train? Very important questions considering we're talking about the (supposed) detrimental effects of lower ZDDP to older flat tappet technology and specifically to enthusiast vehicles, that are generally rebuilt, restored and kept for longer than 100,000 miles.

 

[Jaybird]

Quote:
NONE of them are marketing a "flat tappet Oil" or a "high ZDDP" oil... Despite that fact that everyone from hot rodders to Jeepers, to drag racers, to Muscle car guys, to Porsche enthusiasts are yapping about it on the Internet.
Perhaps these folks have no clue as to what they are yapping about? Ever considered that?

I suggest you do a good bit of reading. Then come back and discuss this issue. But, I highly suggest leaving your favorite hot rod magazines out of the lineup.

And if this place IS run by Quakers, who are you to question it?

I think I may just reserve my debate with you...prolly better all the way around.

Good Luck!

 

[Towel_Rail]

Originally Posted By: Pat in Speedway
I think you're correct. My brother is on a Chevelle forum and a guy there had several VOAs done, including STP Red. Looks like its been stripped clean!

A few VOAs.....



I think I'm going to be sick.

Looks like I'll have to send one of my bottles off for analysis to see if it's the bunk stuff. I spent good money for this...

- Scott

 

[jimrat]

anybody look at motorcycle oil for flat tappet, high spring pressure (OHV) stuff?

 

[Pat in Speedway]

Originally Posted By: jimrat
anybody look at motorcycle oil for flat tappet, high spring pressure (OHV) stuff?


Good point. I know Auto Zone carries Mobil 1 V-twin in 20w-50 and I think 10w-40, but it's a bit pricey at aroudn $8/quart. I've also seen Valvoline 4-stroke in most retail places. I've not really looked at any of it myself, but I think it's rated around SH or SJ???

 

[1bolt]

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
Perhaps these folks have no clue as to what they are yapping about? Ever considered that?


Absolutely! For most of the last three years. Have you ever considered that their may be truth to it?

Anyway I've also considered the possibility that a forum goer on BITOG or anywhere else disagreeing with them; may have no clue -- I certainly don't understand why you would reasonably expect the benefit of the doubt over Automotive journalists, Automotive Engineers and multiple reputable aftermarket companies. Why would you get offended by this? Really you've only sited one outdated 90's research paper sorely lacking on specifics, and quite possibly totally irrelevant to this issue.

Quote:

I suggest you do a good bit of reading.

And I suggest that being condescending isn't making your case stronger. The Quaker comment was a Joke, lighten up, I believe you could repeat that word in a G rated movie without getting it a PG. And to answer your question, who am I? I'm a forum user, free to comment on anything I please so long as I'm not violating the local rules.

Then come back and discuss this issue. But, I highly suggest leaving your favorite hot rod magazines out of the lineup.
I think I may just reserve my debate with you...prolly better all the way around.


If you're going to get snippy then I agree with you. It probably is better that you don't continue. If you're really offended because I wont discount Hod Rod magazine's viewpoint -- on your word, then you're being silly.

If it really helps you to stay focused on the issue then by all means lets forget the hot rod article. Let's discuss the Porsche aftermarket specialty company's Engineer who has put together one of the best collections of ZDDP Issue related research including many links to other studies and research that supports his conclusions.

He doesn't sell cam's and has no ZDDP additive for sale, The oil he recommends on his site for Porsche owners has changed several times as well. No marketeering motive here, so hopefully we can dispense with the "character assassination as rebuttal" spin.

 

[Jaybird]

OK, 1bolt. Tell me, what level of ZDDP is required for an oil to be able to effectively protect a race engine using a flat tappet cam?

Now give me references to back up your claim. -Please leave the "he saids", and "they swears", out of it.

Try to leave the assumptions out of the reference list as well.
I'm looking for cold hard data that tells me what level of ZDDP an oil is required to have, to be able to effectively protect a race engine using flat tappet cams?

Surely folks clambering around for three years on this issue can point to some forms of credible references?
Or are EPA conspiracy theories and half researched, presumptive magazine articles the best they can do?

On the odd note that you won't be able to provide us with that cold hard number, please explain to us why you can't.

 

[jimrat]

Originally Posted By: Pat in Speedway
Originally Posted By: jimrat
anybody look at motorcycle oil for flat tappet, high spring pressure (OHV) stuff?


Good point. I know Auto Zone carries Mobil 1 V-twin in 20w-50 and I think 10w-40, but it's a bit pricey at aroudn $8/quart. I've also seen Valvoline 4-stroke in most retail places. I've not really looked at any of it myself, but I think it's rated around SH or SJ???


pricey but if it helps ensure cam and lifter life....

 

[JAG]

Good links below.

http://www.cromptoncorp.com/ck_prd/tpr_us_en_x_stle2004antiwearalternativestozddp.pdf

http://www.sae.org/events/pfs/presentations/2005spikes.pdf

 

[Towel_Rail]

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
OK, 1bolt. Tell me, what level of ZDDP is required for an oil to be able to effectively protect a race engine using a flat tappet cam?

Now give me references to back up your claim. -Please leave the "he saids", and "they swears", out of it.

Try to leave the assumptions out of the reference list as well.
I'm looking for cold hard data that tells me what level of ZDDP an oil is required to have, to be able to effectively protect a race engine using flat tappet cams?

Surely folks clambering around for three years on this issue can point to some forms of credible references?
Or are EPA conspiracy theories and half researched, presumptive magazine articles the best they can do?

On the odd note that you won't be able to provide us with that cold hard number, please explain to us why you can't.


SAE "Cam and Lifter Wear as Affected by Engine Oil ZDP Concentration and Type", 1977. The point of diminishing returns was around 0.12%.

The EPA warrants catalytic converters on new cars for 80,000 miles or so, and probably wants to minimize the number they have to replace. Does that sound like a conspiracy theory to anyone else but you?

- Scott

 

[1bolt]

Originally Posted By: Jaybird

On the odd note that you won't be able to provide us with that cold hard number, please explain to us why you can't.


did I ever claim to to have that number? I sure don't recall that. So I'm puzzled, why are you suddenly asking me for some arbitrary number? Ahhh... I guess you're grasping at straws then?

I've asked you several questions already that you're ducking and now you want to build a strawman and demand that I answer to it?
Man I'm really sorry but that's ridiculous.

If you would like a recap of the questions you've ducked already here goes:

1) what makes you more credible than hot rod that you dismiss them
2) What did you think of lnengineering's essay and huge assortment of links to research (including dozens of SAE papers) supporting the need for ZDDP.
3) Is Oxidative thickening exclusive to high mileage vehicles?
4) What vehicles and engines were in the fleet of 1991 cars in the paper you cite as evidence that ZDDP isn't required?

One last thing, isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to demand a "race car" specific ZDDP % from me in a thread where you cite a study on fleet cars? Unless it was a fleet of NHRA dragsters...

 

[1bolt]

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
But what evidence can you point to that there is a great need for ZDDP at any level?


Here lets start off fresh, this time I wont assume you were honestly asking for information to make up your own mind, but instead I'll answer realizing that you are firmly entrenched in your presumption that you already know the answer..


In an SAE paper titled "How Much ZDDP is Enough?" from 2004, the resulting trend of decreasing phosphorus is as a direct result of observations that modern engines, with lower spring pressures and lighter vavletrain, including multiple intake and exhaust valves, seems to require only .03% Ph to prevent wear. It was further documented that by increasing to 180 lbs of spring pressure with a .03% ZDP resulted in 267 mil of wear where with .05% ZDP concentration tests resulted in 26 mil of wear. That same .05% oil with just 205 lbs of pressure resulted in 153 mil of wear, requiring .095% ZDP to reduce wear, resulting in just 16 mil.The ZDP requirements of a motor oil are directly proportional to valvetrain spring pressure.


Now Unless I'm missing something, that just directly answered your question, with proof, not just evidence. Documented results that show higher spring rates (and higher cam lifts) require more ZDDP than lower/No spring roller valve train and Overhead cam. To maintain low wear levels.

 

[Rock_Hudstone]

Originally Posted By: Towel_Rail

The EPA warrants catalytic converters on new cars for 80,000 miles or so, and probably wants to minimize the number they have to replace.

Actually, the EPA doesn't warranty jack s**t. They force auto manufacturers to warranty emission components, (to the tune of 100,000 miles I believe).
As usual the American taxpayer foots the bill.

 

[Towel_Rail]

Originally Posted By: Rock_Hudstone
Originally Posted By: Towel_Rail
The EPA warrants catalytic converters on new cars for 80,000 miles or so, and probably wants to minimize the number they have to replace.

Actually, the EPA doesn't warranty jack s**t. They force auto manufacturers to warranty emission components, (to the tune of 100,000 miles I believe).
As usual the American taxpayer foots the bill.

Got me there. I looked in a '96 warranty manual more closely, and the car manufacturer is reponsible for replacing emissions equipment if it fails in less than 80,000 miles.

 

[Jaybird]

It seems that some groups tend to judge the integrity of an engine oil by the API registration. Which is fine, and basically what the API intended, but many seem to be making assumptions about these service categories that just doesn't always mean what they presume it means.

The motorcycle crowd has their unfounded moly scares, and the block engine guys have their unfounded zinc scares.
The moto guys think that any moly content will hose up their clutch system, which is an unfounded assumption.
The car guys feel that if an oil doesn't have a high level of ZDDP, it surely can't protect their perfectly maintained (tongue in cheek) race rides.

The fact is that ZDDP content is not the way to judge the integrity of an oil. Studies have proven that there are many types of chemicals and compounds that interact quite well with ZDDP, and tend to improve or enhance the protective film that ZDDP offers. Some of the car guys caught onto the fact that when ZDDP levels seem to be lowering, there seemed to also be a rise in boron content. So immediately the car guys seem to think that if there is a drop in ZDDP, then there must be an accompanying rise in Borate level.

But what the car guys fail to realize, or have not researched, is that there are other products that are already being used that can enhance, or even replace the ZDDP content of an oil, yet still provide the same or better protection.
Many of these items not detectable with normal elemental analysis.

Knowing this is true, there is no way one can correctly judge the integrity of an oil by it's ZDDp content, or by the level of any element for that matter.

At the risk of you accusing me of dodging your questions...

• what makes you more credible than hot rod that you dismiss them

Credibility only goes as far as the information provided. When I read the very same assumptions given by your references, I have to assume they are using the very same logic as you are. Or perhaps you have bought off on their assumptions.
Magazines make great items to take to the can with you, but for technical reference, they lack desperately. Oh sure, they will once in a great while have an article that is quite well written and very informative, but the fact remains that an article is usually just the opinion of the writer.
Many times the magazine will allow the writer to wax philosophical on an issue, even when they know that the information he is providing is very heavily weighted to either back up his position, or dispel the position of others. The facts be darned in these situations, because the author is often times an affiliate of an advertiser, or the advertiser themselves.
When a publication is blatantly bias, towards the information their advertisers put out, it is hard to rely on them for credible, factual information.

• What did you think of lnengineering's essay and huge assortment of links to research (including dozens of SAE papers) supporting the need for ZDDP.

I think that the essay is basically more assumptions, that are based only on what is shown in an elemental analysis. More opinion, and very little research.
Quote:
This reduction is a mandate issued by API, American Petroleum Institute, who is in charge of developing standing standards for motor oils. The latest API SM standard for car oils calls for a zinc and phosphorus content less than 0.08% to reduce sulfur, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions.
As a result of this mandate,(there is no mandate, only the requirement for a certain API service category...nothing has been mandated to anyone) some motor oils now have as little as 0.05% zinc and phosphorus.(if they are certified SM .06% is the min.)
Prior to the new CJ-4 API standard for diesel oils, we found most of the CI-4 15w40 and 5w40 oils to have excellent levels of Zn and P.(more assumption as to what constitutes "excellent levels")
We did observe Mobil, among other manufacturers, beginning the use of boron in their oils as a zinc-free (ZF) anti-wear additive in various CI-4 and SL formulations, but always with high Zn and P levels, above current API limitations. It would appear now that with the reduction of Zn and P in these newest CJ-4 oils, that boron will now become a more common anti-wear additive, and even with lowered Zn and P levels, the boron levels are still nowhere as close to what previous CI-4 and SL oils, so the long-term performance of these new oils is unknown and unproven in vehicles running fuels other than those classified as ultra-low sulphur, typically less than 10ppm as alluded to earlier. Remember, unleaded fuels don't have these low sulphur levels, at least right now anyways!(more assumption, again using what he saw in elemental analysis' to base an opinion)

I have yet to see any SAE papers referenced that explain that we need ZDDP, per se, and I am full aware of it's worth. Although I have seen lots of data that suggests there are many different things that are showing to interact very well with ZDDP. And these synergistic reactions between zinc and other elements or compounds are what allows the formulator to provide a quality fluid that is not dependent on any particular level of ZDDP as a benchmark. In fact, if you give a look at the info JAG provided, you will see that oil can be formulated with no zinc at all, and perform on par with a high zinc content fluid.

• Is Oxidative thickening exclusive to high mileage vehicles?

Oxidative thickening is a function of the fluid degrading from oxidation, and is not really a function of the vehicle or it's mileage.
I did note that the author you refed. recommends changing out fluid when it has reached a level of 50% of it's original TBN, which I find to be a poor recommendation. But then, he is just stating his opinion, as I am.

• What vehicles and engines were in the fleet of 1991 cars in the paper you cite as evidence that ZDDP isn't required?

I believe it was taxi cabs, but it is irrelevant.
Quote:
What sort of study can we read determining that there needs to be a high rate of ZDDP?
Studies such as this one tend to show this not to be the case:
https://shop.sae.org/technical/papers/952344
I gather from this paper that the benefit of higher ZDDP was attributed to the fact that higher rates increased the oils ability to withstand oxidative thickening, and not with it's prowess as an AW film.
I only refed. that paper because they found that there was not significant difference in performance between higher dosed oil and lower ZDDP oil. They concluded the higher ZDDP level helped with oxidative thickening more than anything. Which makes sense, as formulators take advantage of the great job ZDDP does in fighting acidity.

My bottom line opinion...
It's the synergy of a package that provides a good lubricant.
And there is no way for anyone to asses the integrity of an oil by it's elemental analysis. Therefore grading oils on their API service category, or because they have elevated levels of one component or another, is not a good practice.

Those who add ZDDP to their oil in hopes of increasing the oils integrity, could quite possibly be lessening it's integrity, by hosing the synergism that the fluid once had.