Mobil 1 High Mileage

[RHanselman]

Not mine, just an FYI...

Engine Oil Mythology

Bob Olree

GMPT – Fuels & Lubes



Myths are ill-founded beliefs held uncritically by interested groups. Over the years
there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. One was that the only good
oils were oils made from “Pure Pennsylvania Crude Oil.” This one got started
before the Second World War when engine oil was crude oil with very minimal
refining, and crude oil from Pennsylvania made better engine oil than Texas or
California crude. With modern refining, almost any crude can be made into good
engine oil.



The next myth was that “modern” detergent engine oils were bad for older engines.
This one got started after the Second World War, when the government no longer
needed all the detergent oil for the war effort, and it hit the market as Heavy-Duty
oil. These new detergent oils gave the pre-war cars, which had been driven way
past their normal life and were full of sludge and deposits, a massive enema. In
some cases bad things happened such as increased oil consumption – the piston
rings were completely worn out and the massive piston deposits were the only
thing standing between merely high and horrendous oil consumption. If detergent
oils had been available to the public during the war, this myth never would have
started.



Amazingly there are still a few people today, 60 years later, who believe that they
need to use non-detergent oil in their older cars. Apparently it takes about 75 years
for an oil myth to die.



Then there is the myth that new engines will not break-in on synthetic oils.
Apparently there was an aircraft engine manufacturer who once put out a bulletin
to this effect. Clearly the thousands and thousands of cars filled with Mobil 1 as
factory-fill, which have broke-in quite well, should have put this one to rest.
However this one is only 40 years old, so it has another 35 years to live.



All of these myths have a common theme; newer oils are bad. And this brings us
to the latest myth – new “Starburst”/ API SM engine oils are bad for older cars
because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. This one has
gotten big play in the antique and collector car press lately. The anti-wear additive
being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).




Before debunking this myth we need to look at the history of ZDP usage in engine
oil.



ZDP has been used for over 60 years as an additive in engine oils to provide wear
protection and oxidation stability. Unfortunately, ZDP contains phosphorus, and
phosphorus is a poison for automotive catalysts. For this reason ZDP levels have
been reduced by about 35% over the last 10-15 years down to a maximum of
0.08% for “Starburst”/API SM oils.



Zinc dithiophosphate was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing
corrosion. Starting in 1942, a Chevrolet Stovebolt engine with aftermarket
copper/lead insert bearing connecting rods was the standard oil test. The insert
bearings were weighed before and after test for weight loss due to corrosion. The
phosphorus levels of oils that passed the test were in the 0.03% range.



In the mid 1950s Oldsmobile got in a horsepower war with its Rocket engine
against the Chrysler Hemi. Both companies went to high-lift camshafts and both
got into camshaft scuffing and wear problems very fast. There were three
solutions. Better camshaft and lifter metallurgy, phosphating the camshaft, and
increasing the phosphorus level from ZDP up to the 0.08% range. Another
outcome was a battery of industry wide “Sequence” oil tests. Two of theses tests
were valve-train scuffing/wear tests.



Knowing that this higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing
and wear, some oil companies dumped even more in thinking that they were
offering the customer even more protection. However it was soon learned that
while going above something like 0.14% phosphorus might decrease break-in
scuffing, it increased longer term wear. At about 0.20% phosphorus the ZDP
started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.



Later in the 1970s, the ZDP level was pushed up to the 0.10% phosphorus range as
it was a cheap and effective antioxidant, and increased antioxidancy was needed to
protect the oil in Cadillacs pulling Airstream trailers from thickening to the point
of not pumping. Recently, the need for this higher level of ZDP for protecting the
oil from thickening has been greatly reduced with the introduction of more modern
ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.



Enough history, now getting back to the myth that “Starburst/API SM oils are no
good for older cars. The argument put forth by the myth believers is that while
these oils work perfectly well in modern gasoline engines equipped with roller


camshafts, they will cause catastrophic wear in older engines equipped with flat-
tappet camshafts.





The “Starburst”/API SM oil standards were developed by a group of OEM, oil
additive company, and oil company experts. When developing any new engine oil
standard the issue of “backward compatibility” always comes up, and indeed the
group of experts spent a lot of time researching this issue. Various oil and additive
companies ran “no harm” tests on older cars with the new oils. No problems were
uncovered.



The new specification contains two valve-train wear tests. One is the Sequence
IVA Test which tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a 2.4L Nissan single
overhead camshaft engine with slider finger followers. The wear limits were
tightened from the previous oil specification which contained a phosphorus limit of
0.10%. The second is the Sequence IIIG Test which evaluates cam and lifter wear.
A current production GM Powertrain 3.8L engine with the valve train replaced
with a flat tappet system similar to those used in the 1980s is used. The only
reason that this test engine uses this older valve train design is to insure that older
engines are protected. All “Starburst”/API SM oil formulations must pass these
two tests.



In addition to the protection offered by these two valvetrain wear tests and the new
testing which was conducted on the formulations containing lower levels of ZDP, a
review of the knowledge gained over the years in developing previous categories
also indicates that no problem should be expected. The new “Starburst”/API SM
oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft
scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. They do contain less ZDP than the oils
that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that is because they now
contain high levels of ashless antioxidants that were not commercially available in
the 1960s.



The oil’s ZDP level is only one factor in determining the life of an older camshaft
or a new aftermarket camshaft. Most of the anecdotal reports of camshaft failures
attributed to the newer oils appear to be with aftermarket camshafts. Breaking in
extremely aggressive aftermarket camshafts has always been problem. The
legendary Smokey Yunick wrote that his solution to the problem was to buy
multiple camshafts and simply try breaking them in until he found one that
survived break-in without scuffing.






Despite the pains taken in developing special flat tappet camshaft wear tests that
these new oils must pass and the fact that the ZDP level of these new oils is
comparable to the level found necessary to protect flat tappet camshafts in the past,
there will still be those who want to believe the myth that “new oils will wear out
older engines.” Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will take about
75 years for this one to die also.





February 13, 2007