ZDDP not affected by SM

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
88
Location
tx
I use VR1 30 wt in my '67 mustang. I was told by Valvoline and others that it has high levels of ZDDP, but on the containers it also meets SM. I called Valvoline tech support and they said one of those other specs islac? GF? something, I don't remember right now, calls for the reduction of ZDDP, not SM. Is this correct?
 
High ZDDP would not meet the current ILSAC GF-4 requirements due to emission equipment protection. I use a SM oil that has 1200 ZDDP, but it is not GF-4. Starburst symbol meats GF-4 energy conserving specs and I don't know of anything other than 20 or 30 grade that can meet EC specs. I also cannot think of an EC oil that has a HTHS of over 3.2, but there may be some. There are High Mileage oils that are 30 grade but have an HTHS of 3.5 or better and they are not GF-4, but are SM.
 
Yes, SM has an upper limit of .08% ZDDP. If you want more, buy a 10W-30 or 15W-40 dual-rated diesel-gasoline engine oil rated for API SL.
 
12/15/08 product data sheet for SM spec VR1 lists 1400 ppm zinc and 1300 ppm phosphorus, all grades. Keep using the VR1, it's great oil. Twice the zddp as typical PCMO. VR1 Product Sheet Scroll down for straight grades.
 
Frank & TallPaul, I agree with yall, that is what I'm saying/asking, I've been using the VR1 because of the high ZDDP, but I keep reading posts about SM being reduced and wanted clarification. The SM designation does NOT require lowered ZDDP.
 
Originally Posted By: txrhino
Frank & TallPaul, I agree with yall, that is what I'm saying/asking, I've been using the VR1 because of the high ZDDP, but I keep reading posts about SM being reduced and wanted clarification. The SM designation does NOT require lowered ZDDP.
I don't know. There is some confusion about all these designations. Frank seems to know the score in above post on starburst etc. I go with the product sheet, but you could call valvoline and ask them to explain it. If you do, post the response.
 
Let me add that these are only phosphorous limitations of the ILSAC and not for zinc. There is no pure zinc requirement of a minimum nor a maximum.

aehaas
 
The SM ILSAC GF-4 viscosity grades are SAE 0W-20, 0W-30, 5W-20, 5W-30 and 10W-30 oils. These grades are limited to 0.08 phosphorus (which limits ZDDP because they come together).

The other SM grades (non ILSAC GF-4), like 15W-40, 20W-50 etc., and straight weights like 30, 40, and 50 only have a minimum of 0.06 phosphorus, so they can have a much higher level of ZDDP than the SM/GF-4 grades.
 
There is another exception with SM phosphorus/ZDDP limits besides the non SM/ILSAC grades. If a SM motor oil has a HDEO specification in front of it like CI-4 or CJ-4, it can also have the latest SM specification (like CJ-4/SM rated), it can have the higher phosphorus/ZDDP limit for the HDEO spec.

For example, you will find CJ-4/SM rated 10W-30 HDEO's that can have the higher phosphorus/ZDDP limit as specified with the HDEO spec.
 
Oil grade/weight aside, will the non-Starburst SM rated oils harm emission related equipment in the case where the warranty calls for Starburst?

Also, if the warranty in a new 08 or 09 calls for just Starburst, what if you have an old SL oil that is Starburst, is there a chance that this SL Starburst rated oil would cause emission realted problems?
 
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
Originally Posted By: FrankN4
Ken2

I use a SM oil that has a ZDDP of .12%(1200 PPM) ZDDP.


What is the brand and weight of this oil?


Mobil 1 15W-50.
 
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
Let me add that these are only phosphorous limitations of the ILSAC and not for zinc. There is no pure zinc requirement of a minimum nor a maximum.

aehaas


Agreed, this is what i understand it to be, with ZDDP being the product, but the limit only on the phosphorous. This roughly equates to Zinc itself being 10% of the phosphorous figure. I know they say it only applies to 10W30 oils and below,but some 10W50 and 20W50 are still limitig the Zinc to around 700+ppm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom