Mobil-1 high milage now going SN??

[SOHCman]

Originally Posted By: Carbon12
Aren't most modern OHC engines using what is essentially a flat tappet anyways? SN oils work fine in those. I am actually relieved they are going SN. I still get the slightly higher viscosity and extra seal conditioners and not have to wonder if the high phosphorous is harming the CC.


Roller rockers I thought were fine with SN, but not flat tappet where a cam lobe rubs across a flat metal surface. Perhaps there is a difference in additive requirement between this design in OHC and pushrod type flat tappet?

I have yet to find a VOA or UOA for the new SN formula, but we will see.

I hate to see all the oils becoming the same, what's the point of all the oil types if it's all meant for late model cars. M1HM was a readily available holdout for those who like to keep older stuff alive.

I know it may be a non issue, but we just don't know yet.

 

[BigD1]

Originally Posted By: koffy
I wonder if their 10W-40 flavor is gonna keep the same amount of zddp since it's already sn


Here is a recent VOA. Looks like SN to me.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4190557/1

 

[BigD1]

Originally Posted By: SOHCman
I hate to see all the oils becoming the same, what's the point of all the oil types if it's all meant for late model cars. M1HM was a readily available holdout for those who like to keep older stuff alive.


+1

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SOHCman
Originally Posted By: Carbon12
Aren't most modern OHC engines using what is essentially a flat tappet anyways? SN oils work fine in those. I am actually relieved they are going SN. I still get the slightly higher viscosity and extra seal conditioners and not have to wonder if the high phosphorous is harming the CC.


Roller rockers I thought were fine with SN, but not flat tappet where a cam lobe rubs across a flat metal surface. Perhaps there is a difference in additive requirement between this design in OHC and pushrod type flat tappet?

I have yet to find a VOA or UOA for the new SN formula, but we will see.

I hate to see all the oils becoming the same, what's the point of all the oil types if it's all meant for late model cars. M1HM was a readily available holdout for those who like to keep older stuff alive.

I know it may be a non issue, but we just don't know yet.


There's a marked difference between something like a 305 Chevy or 302 Ford truck motor with non-roller hydraulic lifters and some hi-po mill that ends up chewing up a camshaft. Oils from "back in the day" weren't as heavily laden with ZDDP as many like to think, we've seen old oil VOA's on here before that prove that. The engines that may require elevated levels are best served running an HDEO if they are looking for an oil that should work on the cheap. If you aren't running something remarkable, you'll be served just fine by whatever SN sauce is available on the shelf most likely.

Regarding the difference between OHC and pushrod non-roller interfaces, the difference lies primarily in the mass of the valvetrain:

- Cam-over-bucket, which is a flat follower that rides on the cam face whilst sitting atop the valve spring/valve assembly has no intermediary parts to compensate for. With a 4-valve engine, with even lighter valves, this is highlighted even further. The lower the mass of the valvetrain components, the less spring pressure that is required to control them. Subsequently, the less pressure the interface between the bucket and the cam lobe sees.

- On the pushrod side of things you have the relatively heavy hydraulic lifters, which are then held in tension against the rocker and camshaft by the pressure of the valve spring. Subsequently, you have your rocker ratio in play here as well, exaggerating the lift on the camshaft side into lift on the valve side. All this mass requires more spring pressure to keep in check and will require more pressure per RPM with the same operational camshaft profile (observed valve lift) as an OHC engine because of this.

That said, many of the old flat tappet mills had pretty mild springs because they were pretty asthmatic smog mills with poor breathing and broomstick camshafts. Worrying about ZDDP levels with these engines is pretty silly. On the other hand, if you had some BOSS 302 or Hi-Po Camaro with solid lifters that rev'd to the moon, that's a whole other ball game.

There are plenty of non-roller valvetrains in use currently that are lasting forever on modern oils. If you saw the Ford Ecoboost tear-down pics, that was cam-over bucket run on SN whatever and had the living tar beat out of it.

 

[Garak]

I guess VR-1 and HDEOs are simply becoming the most sensible budget options, with A3/B4 options also something to consider.

 

[SOHCman]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SOHCman
Originally Posted By: Carbon12
Aren't most modern OHC engines using what is essentially a flat tappet anyways? SN oils work fine in those. I am actually relieved they are going SN. I still get the slightly higher viscosity and extra seal conditioners and not have to wonder if the high phosphorous is harming the CC.


Roller rockers I thought were fine with SN, but not flat tappet where a cam lobe rubs across a flat metal surface. Perhaps there is a difference in additive requirement between this design in OHC and pushrod type flat tappet?

I have yet to find a VOA or UOA for the new SN formula, but we will see.

I hate to see all the oils becoming the same, what's the point of all the oil types if it's all meant for late model cars. M1HM was a readily available holdout for those who like to keep older stuff alive.

I know it may be a non issue, but we just don't know yet.


There's a marked difference between something like a 305 Chevy or 302 Ford truck motor with non-roller hydraulic lifters and some hi-po mill that ends up chewing up a camshaft. Oils from "back in the day" weren't as heavily laden with ZDDP as many like to think, we've seen old oil VOA's on here before that prove that. The engines that may require elevated levels are best served running an HDEO if they are looking for an oil that should work on the cheap. If you aren't running something remarkable, you'll be served just fine by whatever SN sauce is available on the shelf most likely.

Regarding the difference between OHC and pushrod non-roller interfaces, the difference lies primarily in the mass of the valvetrain:

- Cam-over-bucket, which is a flat follower that rides on the cam face whilst sitting atop the valve spring/valve assembly has no intermediary parts to compensate for. With a 4-valve engine, with even lighter valves, this is highlighted even further. The lower the mass of the valvetrain components, the less spring pressure that is required to control them. Subsequently, the less pressure the interface between the bucket and the cam lobe sees.

- On the pushrod side of things you have the relatively heavy hydraulic lifters, which are then held in tension against the rocker and camshaft by the pressure of the valve spring. Subsequently, you have your rocker ratio in play here as well, exaggerating the lift on the camshaft side into lift on the valve side. All this mass requires more spring pressure to keep in check and will require more pressure per RPM with the same operational camshaft profile (observed valve lift) as an OHC engine because of this.

That said, many of the old flat tappet mills had pretty mild springs because they were pretty asthmatic smog mills with poor breathing and broomstick camshafts. Worrying about ZDDP levels with these engines is pretty silly. On the other hand, if you had some BOSS 302 or Hi-Po Camaro with solid lifters that rev'd to the moon, that's a whole other ball game.

There are plenty of non-roller valvetrains in use currently that are lasting forever on modern oils. If you saw the Ford Ecoboost tear-down pics, that was cam-over bucket run on SN whatever and had the living tar beat out of it.


Thank you for that thoughtful explanation/description, it makes a lot of sense.

 

[SOHCman]

Originally Posted By: Garak
I guess VR-1 and HDEOs are simply becoming the most sensible budget options, with A3/B4 options also something to consider.


True, but they seem to have stopped carrying VR-1 around here, perhaps amazon may help. I have extensively used HDEOs in the 10w-30 flavor during the summer, but don't think it would be a good idea for the winter months around here when it gets below freezing. Think Rotella or Delo will ever make a 0/5w-30, lol?

 

[bigt61]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

There's a marked difference between something like a 305 Chevy or 302 Ford truck motor with non-roller hydraulic lifters and some hi-po mill that ends up chewing up a camshaft. Oils from "back in the day" weren't as heavily laden with ZDDP as many like to think, we've seen old oil VOA's on here before that prove that. The engines that may require elevated levels are best served running an HDEO if they are looking for an oil that should work on the cheap. If you aren't running something remarkable, you'll be served just fine by whatever SN sauce is available on the shelf most likely.

Regarding the difference between OHC and pushrod non-roller interfaces, the difference lies primarily in the mass of the valvetrain:

- Cam-over-bucket, which is a flat follower that rides on the cam face whilst sitting atop the valve spring/valve assembly has no intermediary parts to compensate for. With a 4-valve engine, with even lighter valves, this is highlighted even further. The lower the mass of the valvetrain components, the less spring pressure that is required to control them. Subsequently, the less pressure the interface between the bucket and the cam lobe sees.

- On the pushrod side of things you have the relatively heavy hydraulic lifters, which are then held in tension against the rocker and camshaft by the pressure of the valve spring. Subsequently, you have your rocker ratio in play here as well, exaggerating the lift on the camshaft side into lift on the valve side. All this mass requires more spring pressure to keep in check and will require more pressure per RPM with the same operational camshaft profile (observed valve lift) as an OHC engine because of this.

That said, many of the old flat tappet mills had pretty mild springs because they were pretty asthmatic smog mills with poor breathing and broomstick camshafts. Worrying about ZDDP levels with these engines is pretty silly. On the other hand, if you had some BOSS 302 or Hi-Po Camaro with solid lifters that rev'd to the moon, that's a whole other ball game.

There are plenty of non-roller valvetrains in use currently that are lasting forever on modern oils. If you saw the Ford Ecoboost tear-down pics, that was cam-over bucket run on SN whatever and had the living tar beat out of it.

Very well said Overkill - you hit the nail squarely. Unless you have a pre 1971 muscle car w solid lifters, modern oils work fine. There is always the HDEOs and M1 15W-50 for the old applications and even many flat tappet race cars.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: SOHCman
True, but they seem to have stopped carrying VR-1 around here, perhaps amazon may help. I have extensively used HDEOs in the 10w-30 flavor during the summer, but don't think it would be a good idea for the winter months around here when it gets below freezing. Think Rotella or Delo will ever make a 0/5w-30, lol?

Well, a 10w-30 HDEO is not likely to be much worse in winter than VR-1 10w-30, assuming you can find the latter, either. Delo does make a 5w-30 HDEO, Shell is coming out with one, and XOM has one, but they are low phosphorus E6, E7, E9 lubes. I'm sure they're fine, but if someone is simply looking for elevated ZDDP, these options won't cut it. You could take a trip to Canada and buy Mobil Delvac Elite 222 0w-30.

Of course, if one is willing to spend money on synthetics, and I fully understand the hesitation to do so, particularly in something that might leak or consume oil, one at least gets opened to the 5w-40 and 0w-40 options in HDEOs, along with various A3/B4 options.

 

[buster]

Good. Few engines need SL levels of ZDP.

 

[freshcopedawg]

Originally Posted By: buster
Good. Few engines need SL levels of ZDP.


While that's true I use the 10W30 on both mowers, pressure washer, tiller, etc. I bought a 5qt jug at Walmart a couple months ago that's SL. Having said all that there are many more options out there.
Looking at the Mobil site most of the specs still say SL. The exception being 10W40 which says "SN, SM, SL".

 

[KingCake]

Originally Posted By: freshcopedawg
Originally Posted By: buster
Good. Few engines need SL levels of ZDP.


While that's true I use the 10W30 on both mowers, pressure washer, tiller, etc. I bought a 5qt jug at Walmart a couple months ago that's SL. Having said all that there are many more options out there.
Looking at the Mobil site most of the specs still say SL. The exception being 10W40 which says "SN, SM, SL".


All that extra additive is doing in your mower is making sludge. The cams aren't even metal in most OPE.

 

[BigD1]

Originally Posted By: KingCake
Originally Posted By: freshcopedawg
Originally Posted By: buster
Good. Few engines need SL levels of ZDP.


While that's true I use the 10W30 on both mowers, pressure washer, tiller, etc. I bought a 5qt jug at Walmart a couple months ago that's SL. Having said all that there are many more options out there.
Looking at the Mobil site most of the specs still say SL. The exception being 10W40 which says "SN, SM, SL".


All that extra additive is doing in your mower is making sludge. The cams aren't even metal in most OPE.


The 10W-30 SL HTHS was 3.5, so there was more to it than just a little bit extra ZDDP.

 

[4WD]

Interesting comment since thousands of folks use HDEO in OPE ...

 

[Garak]

Additionally, every oil out there, aside from a couple niche products, uses ZDDP anyhow. It's not like it was shovelled into M1 HM and then handled by the eyedropper with an ordinary monograde or ILSAC 30.