Oil viscosity and ZDDP

[FJP]

The Auto Restorer ran a letter in the “Mechanic on Duty” column in the September issue.  Basically the Mechanic on Duty (Richard Prince) says this is not a problem.  But he is talking about the reduction of phosphorous in motor oil.  He basis his position that this is all “hogwash” on the belief that the oil companies would not abandon the millions of late model cars with non roller tappets.  Nor would the manufactures of those engines accept the change in oils that did not protect their engines. 

Call me a cynic, but this kind of stuff does happen; how different is this from Micro$oft coming out every few years with a new version of Windows that will not run at least some of your favorite (and perfectly good) software, forcing you to buy new stuff . . .

I've heard at least some people say that any engine made before 1987 will benefit from maintaining higher levels of ZDDP.  I have somehow been living under a rock and didn't know about this at all until the Self Starter article.  Whereupon I panicked about my '74 Brougham into which I poured SM oil in July, unknowingly.

A bit of investigation revealed that O'Reilly Auto Parts here in Savannah sells a house brand "oil treatment" for about 2 bucks per bottle that lists ZDDP as the primary active ingredient.  In the crankcase it went!  Cheaper and easier to acquire than that GM stuff.

I don't know how much of an area the O'Reilly chain covers but I suspect that the same product is sold under other house labels.

The same store still had some "old style" Rotella (SL standard).  But that is either 15W-40 or maybe even 20W-50; should I really be running that in my '74?

Last but not least, I noticed that motorcycle oil (Castrol, at least) is still marked as SG or SH and it is available in 10W-30.  But does motorcycle oil have ZDDP?  And does it have anything else in it that we would not want in a low revving Cadillac V8?

[Glen]

Well, as long as you've touched the Freon 12 topic, here it is. Freon is HEAVIER THAN AIR. That being so, how is it supposed to get up to the ozone layer and eat the hole bigger? Just how many million cubic feet of freon could be needed to do any  significvant change to that ozone layer?   ....IF IT COULD EVER EVEN GET UP THERE!

If you look at the Mississippi river it has silt all the way to the surface.  But dirt is heaver than water, so how does it get to the top?  The answer is turbulence.  The silt like CFCs are stirred up and become suspended much higher than they would be if the water (air) was still. 

I was asking that question myself for a number of years before I got this explanation. 

I am still not convinced that CFCs are causing the loss of the ozone layer.  Ozone is a by product of the burning of fossil fuels.  Mike can fill us in on the chemistry of that process. 

I found somewhere the ozone layer was not discovered until 1955, with more than a century of burning fossil fuels how do we know we did not create the ozone layer to begin with?  The ozone layer maybe dissipating because we have begun cleaning up the output from our factories. 

Can someone point me to any scientific proof that this theory is not valid? 

Back to ZDDP.  I think I will be using additives in both my 68 ELDO and my ’38 Cadillac unless someone can prove I don’t need it.  It seems to be cheap enough insurance. 

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

The Auto Restorer ran a letter in the “Mechanic on Duty” column in the September issue.  Basically the Mechanic on Duty (Richard Prince) says this is not a problem.  But he is talking about the reduction of phosphorous in motor oil.  He basis his position that this is all “hogwash” on the belief that the oil companies would not abandon the millions of late model cars with non roller tappets.  Nor would the manufactures of those engines accept the change in oils that did not protect their engines. 

Frankly, I am sure that the Motor Manufacturers aren't concerned with with what happens to an engine, once it is out of Warranty, and maybe for that "ten years after the last production run" as they are only in the business to build and sell new cars.

If the old cars keep on going, then there is less of a market for new cars.

It is a bit like the phasing out of the Leaded Petrol.   If there was a problem with the engines not lasting, surely the Manufacturers would have lobbied all the World's Governments for subsidies to make the older engines to run forever on the unleaded fuel?   No, they just want everyone to scrap their old cars, and buy nice new "non-polluting" cars that they build, so that they can make more profit for shareholders.

Bruce.

PS.   It is called "Planned Obsolescence".

[buicksplus]

Friends:

This whole discussion sounds like a tempest in a teapot.  Oil chemistry is plenty complicated, but there are millions of modern engines out there with flat tappets and bronze components.  They accumulate more miles and are stressed far more severely than any of our Cadillac flatheads.  Surely if a change in oil standards trashes engines, it is going to show up much sooner amongst the millions of modern cars out there -- and if that happens, the manufacturers who strongly influence the oil standards are going to get it corrected.

We heard this all before when the change to unleaded fuel was going to ruin our valve seats. Never happened.

Meanwhile, keep enjoying your flathead, it will probably last for years regardless of what kind of oil you use iin it -- provided you change oil often and drive your car with the respect it has earned.  I don't plan to waste any money on additives that I have no idea whether or not they are compatible with my engine.

Oh yes, that brass idler gear -- this has always been a weak point in this engine, I have seen many of these gears with severe wear long before the proposal to eliminate ZDDP from the oil.   Having a spare of these around is never a bad idea. 

[35-709]

To All;

I have had some discussion on this subject with a gentleman who worked in the Shell Research Lab. both in CA. and Wood River, IL. in the late fifties and early sixties. My question to him was to ask how the Flathead Cadillac engines survived before the ZDDP additives were put into the oils. His answer was that the zinc and phosphorus compounds were present in the oil as impurities.

It would really be helpful if some of the oil company research lab people could get involved in this matter.

When I first heard about this problem, I thought about the unleaded gasoline scare, like Mike Josephic said. If I remember, he is a chemist and should have insight into the problem.

Terry Wenger

Buicksplus,
Did you read Terry Wenger's post above?  The last thing I want to do is be an alarmist, but then again I am not going to risk my engine's health for the lack of an additive that I know IS compatible with my engine, and was in there for a good reason.

"We heard this all before when the change to unleaded fuel was going to ruin our valve seats. Never happened."

This is an apples to oranges comparison to the ZDDP question at hand, it may be true, it may not.  Someone else is going to have to find out ---- not me! 

We're not talking about cylinder head surgery to replace valve seats here ---- we're talking about an easy to add additive that has been a part of engine oils since the late 40's/early 50's, and as it turns out was in oils as an "impurity" before that!  With the evidence that has been compiled, the articles that have been written (which many seem loathe to even read), I am surprised about the blase attitude some are taking about this especially considering the cost of a premature overhaul. 

IF this is merely another "scare", fine, I most certainly hope it is, for now "I am sleeping better"!  If not, I will be out little money and will have protected my engine ---- suits me.  Everyone else ---- suit yourself.

 

[Whit Otis, 1188]

Thank you Doug Houston.  All of this media hype designed to wins friends (votes) for certain politicians and political parties is very disturbing.  When these would be purveyors of the truth shout down acclaimed scientists by calling them liars because they doubt that man made products cause global warming, we have reached a new low... frankly a low that has been going on for 20 or 30 years or more.  When I went to school and took science classes we were instructed to rely "on the empirical evidence."  Today, you have idiot politicians making up all kinds of stuff that is is presented as truth and people eat it up by the bowlful.  Give me a break!
Whit Otis

[Bill Podany #19567]

Thank you Doug Houston.  All of this media hype designed to wins friends (votes) for certain politicians and political parties is very disturbing.  When these would be purveyors of the truth shout down acclaimed scientists by calling them liars because they doubt that man made products cause global warming, we have reached a new low... frankly a low that has been going on for 20 or 30 years or more.  When I went to school and took science classes we were instructed to rely "on the empirical evidence."  Today, you have idiot politicians making up all kinds of stuff that is is presented as truth and people eat it up by the bowlful.  Give me a break!
Whit Otis   
Amen to that brother!
Bill Podany, #19567

[John Washburn CLC 1067 Sadly deceased.]

Well, as long as you've touched the Freon 12 topic, here it is. Freon is HEAVIER THAN AIR. That being so, how is it supposed to get up to the ozone layer and eat the hole bigger? Just how many million cubic feet of freon could be needed to do any  significvant change to that ozone layer?   ....IF IT COULD EVER EVEN GET UP THERE!

The truth is that there is indeed, a hole in the ozone layer, but it's situated over Antarctica.

Did you ever notice that averything that allegedly damages the "environment" always comes back to the internal combustion engine?

There  is so  terribly much truth about global warming to be read, if only a few thousand would get off their duffs and read it. The news media might have to go against their principles and publish the truth some day.

Doug:

I also don't agree with all of the hogwash that's being promoted about Global Warming and such.

That said, here's the reason R-12 is being phased out.  Yes, I said "phased out" since developing
countries are permitted under the Montreal Protocol Agreement, to continue to produce for
a number of years yet.  The U.S. and other "developed" countries had to cease production
some years ago.  There is still plenty of R-12 around and it's available (for a price).  However, it's
density relative to air is not the issue.

Under the influence of sunlight, a chlorine atom from a chlorinated fluorocarbon compound, such
as R-12 refrigerant, reacts with one of the oxygen atoms in the ozone to produce chlorine
monoxide and free oxygen. Neither chlorine monoxide nor free oxygen can filter out the
sun's ultraviolet rays as ozone can. For each 1 percent of ozone reduction, 1.5 percent more
radiation reaches the earth's surface. That's the issue.

As far as you comments on ZDDP and oil, that we must all have out heads "in the sand"
or elsewhere, and that the major oil companies are out to get us, here's my take.

I can only ask what other conspiracy theories do you embrace?  Perhaps you
can tell us about the JFK assassination, secret 911 theories, UFO's or whatever else. 
It should make interesting reading.  I trust you've seen the movie "The Formula"
with Marlon Brando -- about the "secret" German process to make synthetic oil during
WWII.  That, however, at least has a grain of truth to it -- they did have a process and
it worked, it just is not econmical at least at current oil prices.  It's called "coal gasification".
However, it's making a comeback.  Stay tuned.

Don't be so quick to stomp on people just because you don't agree -- scientific debate is
based of FACT not emotion, misconceptions or half-truths.  I also didn't appreciate your
language or allusions as to where our heads are at.  Look to your own first.

Mike





Mike,

I've been pondering the issue of ZDDP in oil for awhile. What I keep wondering about is the issue you raised about non-detergent single grade oils that were used in these old cars. Seems they lubricated the old flat heads ok, lifters worked and did not fail with any great regularity. So why now is ZDDP so critical?

My question concerns multi viscosity oil use versus single grade. If we use a single grade oil in our 30's, 40's, and 50's cars are we getting better protection, for the lifters and cam, than multi-grade oils? The engines were developed to run on single grade oil so I wonder if the issue (lifter wear is the main issue in this debate for me, nothin else) or problem might be migitigated by use of a good single grade of motor oil?

Oh well just curious.

John Washburn
CLC #1067
stuck in florida so I can't play with my cars...

[35-709]

[quote
My question concerns multi viscosity oil use versus single grade. If we use a single grade oil in our 30's, 40's, and 50's cars are we getting better protection, for the lifters and cam, than multi-grade oils? The engines were developed to run on single grade oil so I wonder if the issue (lifter wear is the main issue in this debate for me, nothin else) or problem might be migitigated by use of a good single grade of motor oil?

Oh well just curious.

John Washburn
CLC #1067
stuck in florida so I can't play with my cars...
[/quote]

They ran on single grade oil because that is all there was back then, whether using a single grade now or a multi-grade in engines before the Kettering V-8 in '49 is open to debate.  The protection in either oil depends on how much ZDDP is in them.  Before ZDDP was developed and added zinc was already in the oils as a supposed "impurity" (see the earlier posts in this thread).  Most of what I have been led to understand is that single weight HD 30 in a flathead in good condition is preferred.

[homeonprunehill]

[quote
My question concerns multi viscosity oil use versus single grade. If we use a single grade oil in our 30's, 40's, and 50's cars are we getting better protection, for the lifters and cam, than multi-grade oils? The engines were developed to run on single grade oil so I wonder if the issue (lifter wear is the main issue in this debate for me, nothin else) or problem might be migitigated by use of a good single grade of motor oil?

Oh well just curious.

John Washburn
CLC #1067
stuck in florida so I can't play with my cars...

They ran on single grade oil because that is all there was back then, whether using a single grade now or a multi-grade in engines before the Kettering V-8 in '49 is open to debate.  The protection in either oil depends on how much ZDDP is in them.  Before ZDDP was developed and added zinc was already in the oils as a supposed "impurity" (see the earlier posts in this thread).  Most of what I have been led to understand is that single weight HD 30 in a flathead in good condition is preferred.
[/quote]




1129-07
HELLO EVERYONE, First of all,  I only put in print what I have read some place.  When I  got my '38 La Salle, I wrote to the pres. of GM (prior to me knowing of  the CLC.)  He sent me the '38 supperment to the '37 La S maintence manel sopposelly covering what was NEW in the '38 VS the '37. I don't have access to the supperment at the present time due to being in AZ where it is warm compared to the state where I have a summer home. I will try to quote from the supperment concerning engine oil. "If the outside air is going to be at or lower then 30 degrees, One is suppose to drain out a qt. of engine oil and replace it with a qt. of karosine. I may be wrong,but I think it says to use 2 qts of karosine if it will be colder then 10 degrees. When I was in ND, it got a lot colder thyen that but I never run any karosine. As for the Multi -grade oils. I had it explined to me once, seems like when the oil is cold it will be no thicker then the large number and when the engine warmes-up, the oil will not be any thiner then the small number. I got a bottor of the ZDDP from a GM (Chev) DEALER and used four oz's in my La S. figured it could do little or no harm.
Good Luck,JIM
P.S. I had trouble understaning how the oil could maintain any thickness when hot.                                                                                        Then the genterman explained what happen when macaroni was cooked. It became as clear as mud then.

[John Washburn CLC 1067 Sadly deceased.]

[quote
My question concerns multi viscosity oil use versus single grade. If we use a single grade oil in our 30's, 40's, and 50's cars are we getting better protection, for the lifters and cam, than multi-grade oils? The engines were developed to run on single grade oil so I wonder if the issue (lifter wear is the main issue in this debate for me, nothin else) or problem might be migitigated by use of a good single grade of motor oil?

Oh well just curious.

John Washburn
CLC #1067
stuck in florida so I can't play with my cars...

They ran on single grade oil because that is all there was back then, whether using a single grade now or a multi-grade in engines before the Kettering V-8 in '49 is open to debate.  The protection in either oil depends on how much ZDDP is in them.  Before ZDDP was developed and added zinc was already in the oils as a supposed "impurity" (see the earlier posts in this thread).  Most of what I have been led to understand is that single weight HD 30 in a flathead in good condition is preferred.


Geoff,

I am aware of the history of automotive oil (not all but some of it), have some knowledge on the ZDDP issue, and have even read the threads. For me go believe the impurities would somehow form a complex compound (zddp is more than zincc) to protect my old flathead in 1937 is similar to believing that if you got enough monkeys and type writers they could produce the Bible.

I still interested in multi oils versus single grade in old iron so will investigate it further.

Have Fun
john washburn

[35-709]

"For me go believe the impurities would somehow form a complex compound (zddp is more than zincc) to protect my old flathead in 1937 is similar to believing that if you got enough monkeys and type writers they could produce the Bible."

Indeed, ZDDP is obviously more than just zinc and no one ever said that it wasn't, nor did anyone say that it would "somehow form a complex compound" like ZDDP.   But the zinc did offer some protection.  Research and investigation is certainly the key.

You have fun too, John   

[Michael Brittan CLC #2750]

Well, as long as you've touched the Freon 12 topic, here it is. Freon is HEAVIER THAN AIR. That being so, how is it supposed to get up to the ozone layer and eat the hole bigger? Just how many million cubic feet of freon could be needed to do any  significvant change to that ozone layer?   ....IF IT COULD EVER EVEN GET UP THERE!

The truth is that there is indeed, a hole in the ozone layer, but it's situated over Antarctica.

Did you ever notice that averything that allegedly damages the "environment" always comes back to the internal combustion engine?

There  is so  terribly much truth about global warming to be read, if only a few thousand would get off their duffs and read it. The news media might have to go against their principles and publish the truth some day.

Doug:

I also don't agree with all of the hogwash that's being promoted about Global Warming and such.

That said, here's the reason R-12 is being phased out.  Yes, I said "phased out" since developing
countries are permitted under the Montreal Protocol Agreement, to continue to produce for
a number of years yet.  The U.S. and other "developed" countries had to cease production
some years ago.  There is still plenty of R-12 around and it's available (for a price).  However, it's
density relative to air is not the issue.

Under the influence of sunlight, a chlorine atom from a chlorinated fluorocarbon compound, such
as R-12 refrigerant, reacts with one of the oxygen atoms in the ozone to produce chlorine
monoxide and free oxygen. Neither chlorine monoxide nor free oxygen can filter out the
sun's ultraviolet rays as ozone can. For each 1 percent of ozone reduction, 1.5 percent more
radiation reaches the earth's surface. That's the issue.

As far as you comments on ZDDP and oil, that we must all have out heads "in the sand"
or elsewhere, and that the major oil companies are out to get us, here's my take.

I can only ask what other conspiracy theories do you embrace?  Perhaps you
can tell us about the JFK assassination, secret 911 theories, UFO's or whatever else. 
It should make interesting reading.  I trust you've seen the movie "The Formula"
with Marlon Brando -- about the "secret" German process to make synthetic oil during
WWII.  That, however, at least has a grain of truth to it -- they did have a process and
it worked, it just is not econmical at least at current oil prices.  It's called "coal gasification".
However, it's making a comeback.  Stay tuned.

Don't be so quick to stomp on people just because you don't agree -- scientific debate is
based of FACT not emotion, misconceptions or half-truths.  I also didn't appreciate your
language or allusions as to where our heads are at.  Look to your own first.

Mike


Mike:

If I might add a tidbit to your information, the coal gasification process you mentioned has been used for years in South Africa, under the SASOL brand label.  You can actually buy stock in this company if you feel so inclined.

Mike

[EdDougher]

Be careful about assuming that the Valvoline VR1 "racing" oil has more zinc and phosphates.  It carries the dreaded SM API classification.

Personally, I've been using either Castrol or Valvoline 10W-40 4-stroke motorcycle oil.  SG or SJ.   

[EdDougher]

Any opinions on the oil they sell at Dollar General?  The brand is Uni-something, from Tennessee.  It's labeled SF, and "for pre-1988 cars".  It's really cheap... $1.25 a quart, I think.

I've been hesitant to try such a cheap, off-brand.

[TJ Hopland]

With only a few places even making oil these days even off brands cant be too far off anymore.

Anyone ever find what exactally the API ratings are or require or include?  All I have ever found is a chart that talks about years they were introduced.

I noticed a brand at Napa the other day that I think had Moly in the name.  The sign said something about premium euro lubes.  Since many assembly lubes are molly based maybe this stuff is a good thing if it actually has a signifigant amount of molybdenum in it?