Amazon engine oil vs the world

[32valvZ]

Am I the only one using Amsoil?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by 32valvZ

Am I the only one using Amsoil?

It is good to see someone’s keeping the Amway Brothers happy; their Yacht takes a lot of fuel.

[32valvZ]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

It is good to see someone’s keeping the Amway Brothers happy; their Yacht takes a lot of fuel.

I'm not sure what oil you use, but Id be willing to bet you're supporting an off shore company with whatever choice you have made. At the very least, your money is going to a multi billion dollar oil company.... Doesn't make me feel too bad supporting the Amway Brothers... I have no issue with their yacht either.... Im not a "hate the rich" kinda guy...know what I mean?

[Mystic ZR-1]

Originally Posted by 32valvZ

I'm not sure what oil you use, but Id be willing to bet you're supporting an off shore company with whatever choice you have made. At the very least, your money is going to a multi billion dollar oil company.... Doesn't make me feel too bad supporting the Amway Brothers... I have no issue with their yacht either.... Im not a "hate the rich" kinda guy...know what I mean?

Amsoil has nothing to do with Amway, other than being accused of being a pyramid scheme...

[Paul Workman]

Originally Posted by Mystic ZR-1

Amsoil has nothing to do with Amway, other than being accused of being a pyramid scheme...

Yup! Different companies entirely - not to be cornfoozed!

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by 32valvZ

I'm not sure what oil you use, but Id be willing to bet you're supporting an off shore company with whatever choice you have made. At the very least, your money is going to a multi billion dollar oil company.... Doesn't make me feel too bad supporting the Amway Brothers... I have no issue with their yacht either.... Im not a "hate the rich" kinda guy...know what I mean?

Actually I like them; I have been on their yacht it was very nice

[Mystic ZR-1]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Actually I like them; I have been on their yacht it was very nice

You’re confused, that was Bob‘s boat
and Kitchen Little.... 😀

[Paul Workman]

Originally Posted by RussMcB

So, are all of these "acceptable" for 99% of us here (except the Racing 4T)?

I chuckled to myself when I first assumed our cars were "domestic", then reconsidered when I remembered where the engines were built and designed. :-)

Marc Haibeck's (zr1specialist.com) site contains an excellently presented write-up estabilshing the oil specifications at the time of the LT5 introduction. In short, the article establishes ZDDP levels at the time of the engine's debut as 1200/1300 parts per million (PPM) of phosphorous and zinc additives.

Bearings aside for a moment, perhaps the most critically demanding areas for lubricity s the cam lobe and lifter contact surfaces. And, well established levels of ZDDP were added such quantities to boost lubricity enough to provide adequit protection for motors with cam lobes sliding directly on the fixed lifter faces. But, the down-side was the fact that the phosphorous and zinc compounds were recognized as being detrimental to the effective longevity of catalytic converter and by extension air quality.

Roller tappets was the answer to the high levels of lubricity (ZDDP) required for the critical cam/lifter contact. And, over time, as newer engines w/ their reduced lubricity demands replaced older motors with their flat tappets, ZDDP levels were increasingly reduced in subsequent (API) specification releases.

Coincidentally, along with reductions of the phosphorous/zinc additives, a rise in the number of cam lobe failures was documented, and reduction of ZDDP was at the tip of the controversy. A huge debate ensued (and continues today) between engine builders and experts retained by the (oil) manufacturers (no surprise there) as to the exact cause of failures.

Questions of cam lobe surface hardening procedures and recommended cam break-in procedures and oils and the application (i.e., racing with unusual spring tensions, etc.) was all thrown into the cloudy soup of causal analysis arguments (and continue to be hashed yet today, if only at a reduced noise level).

Lubricant failures tend to be insidious. So, wear on parts due to inadequate lubrication is often difficult to pinpoint exactly in the longer term (of time and miles); complicated by other factors such as oil change intervals, average engine loading, heat, cold, short vs. long haul history, etc.

On the one hand... mitigating factors for wear is the lack of valve actuator linkage and the mass associated with that. (For example, the actual lifter in the LT5 measures only about a centimeter in diameter and about 2 cm long. It is housed in a titanium(?) lifter shell which makes the actual contact with the cam lobe.) And, the valve weight due to the smaller size of the valves for DOHC apps vs. a 2-valve arrangement. Spring tension is reduced resulting from these factors which further reduces friction in the valve train.

On the other hand... Custom (higher) lift and faster rise intervals associated with increased lift, especially when combined with higher rev limits (approaching 8000 rpm on some builds adds to lubricity demands at the square of the increase in rpm above those typical of OHV motors. I have personally observed the lifter shells of LT5s that have worn through and shattered - testimony to the severity of friction between the cam lobes and the lifter bodies of these motors.

Maybe Pete or Marc can post some pix of such destroyed lifters?

The "take away" (for me, at least) is:
1) the original spec from Lotus was for oil with ZDDP in the 1200/1300 region.

2) Significant evidence exists to suggest less is not more, when it comes to ZDDP and these motors.

3) Cam lobe and lifter wear is insidious. By the time trouble is detected, it is often catastrophic.

4) The LT5's are expensive and much more labor intensive to fix than other (OHV) motors with a single internal cam. Most would agree that it makes sense to avoid "experimenting" with certain aspects, including (especially) OIL/lubrication; choosing rather to rely of the experience of experts (or at least significant evidence resulting from known applications).

In short: ZDDP additives in PPM quantities significantly higher than that specified for the latest (and especially for non-competition or aggressive driving situations, is highly recommended.

ALSO! in a survey of driving habits of ZR-1 owners, now several years old, I was shocked to learn that ~ 60% of them seldom if ever tickled the stock rev limiter (7100 rpm), and a good many of them admitted they seldom if ever reved to 6000 rpm! Well, in that context, is it any wonder the experience with various engine fills (not to mention mileage) having various ZDDP concentrations would be all over the map?? WAXERS vs. WARRIORS... The experiences and so too recommendations could legitimately vary considerably.

So... I guess if you drive your Z like it was intended, then it would be important to choose oils (synthetic included) with closer to the original (Lotus) recommendation: 1200/1300 PPM. But, if you baby your baby - parades or cruising to cars n coffee (primarily), then maybe you don't have to worry about it so much??

[secondchance]

Originally Posted by Paul Workman

Marc Haibeck's (zr1specialist.com) site contains an excellently presented write-up estabilshing the oil specifications at the time of the LT5 introduction. In short, the article establishes ZDDP levels at the time of the engine's debut as 1200/1300 parts per million (PPM) of phosphorous and zinc additives.

Bearings aside for a moment, perhaps the most critically demanding areas for lubricity s the cam lobe and lifter contact surfaces. And, well established levels of ZDDP were added such quantities to boost lubricity enough to provide adequit protection for motors with cam lobes sliding directly on the fixed lifter faces. But, the down-side was the fact that the phosphorous and zinc compounds were recognized as being detrimental to the effective longevity of catalytic converter and by extension air quality.

Roller tappets was the answer to the high levels of lubricity (ZDDP) required for the critical cam/lifter contact. And, over time, as newer engines w/ their reduced lubricity demands replaced older motors with their flat tappets, ZDDP levels were increasingly reduced in subsequent (API) specification releases.

Coincidentally, along with reductions of the phosphorous/zinc additives, a rise in the number of cam lobe failures was documented, and reduction of ZDDP was at the tip of the controversy. A huge debate ensued (and continues today) between engine builders and experts retained by the (oil) manufacturers (no surprise there) as to the exact cause of failures.

Questions of cam lobe surface hardening procedures and recommended cam break-in procedures and oils and the application (i.e., racing with unusual spring tensions, etc.) was all thrown into the cloudy soup of causal analysis arguments (and continue to be hashed yet today, if only at a reduced noise level).

Lubricant failures tend to be insidious. So, wear on parts due to inadequate lubrication is often difficult to pinpoint exactly in the longer term (of time and miles); complicated by other factors such as oil change intervals, average engine loading, heat, cold, short vs. long haul history, etc.

On the one hand... mitigating factors for wear is the lack of valve actuator linkage and the mass associated with that. (For example, the actual lifter in the LT5 measures only about a centimeter in diameter and about 2 cm long. It is housed in a titanium(?) lifter shell which makes the actual contact with the cam lobe.) And, the valve weight due to the smaller size of the valves for DOHC apps vs. a 2-valve arrangement. Spring tension is reduced resulting from these factors which further reduces friction in the valve train.

On the other hand... Custom (higher) lift and faster rise intervals associated with increased lift, especially when combined with higher rev limits (approaching 8000 rpm on some builds adds to lubricity demands at the square of the increase in rpm above those typical of OHV motors. I have personally observed the lifter shells of LT5s that have worn through and shattered - testimony to the severity of friction between the cam lobes and the lifter bodies of these motors.

Maybe Pete or Marc can post some pix of such destroyed lifters?

The "take away" (for me, at least) is:
1) the original spec from Lotus was for oil with ZDDP in the 1200/1300 region.

2) Significant evidence exists to suggest less is not more, when it comes to ZDDP and these motors.

3) Cam lobe and lifter wear is insidious. By the time trouble is detected, it is often catastrophic.

4) The LT5's are expensive and much more labor intensive to fix than other (OHV) motors with a single internal cam. Most would agree that it makes sense to avoid "experimenting" with certain aspects, including (especially) OIL/lubrication; choosing rather to rely of the experience of experts (or at least significant evidence resulting from known applications).

In short: ZDDP additives in PPM quantities significantly higher than that specified for the latest (and especially for non-competition or aggressive driving situations, is highly recommended.

ALSO! in a survey of driving habits of ZR-1 owners, now several years old, I was shocked to learn that ~ 60% of them seldom if ever tickled the stock rev limiter (7100 rpm), and a good many of them admitted they seldom if ever reved to 6000 rpm! Well, in that context, is it any wonder the experience with various engine fills (not to mention mileage) having various ZDDP concentrations would be all over the map?? WAXERS vs. WARRIORS... The experiences and so too recommendations could legitimately vary considerably.

So... I guess if you drive your Z like it was intended, then it would be important to choose oils (synthetic included) with closer to the original (Lotus) recommendation: 1200/1300 PPM. But, if you baby your baby - parades or cruising to cars n coffee (primarily), then maybe you don't have to worry about it so much??

Paul,

As usual, I agree 100% with your thoughts. I personally might take my car to 7,000 rpm (or close) once a moth or so and it's for a quick trip to 100 coming back from local cars and coffee.
When Mobil 1 High Mileage had 1100 ppm zinc and 1000 ppm phosphate, I said - "yeah, close enough!". Now that I found out Mobile 1 dropped ppm levels for zinc and phosphate and running phase 1 intake camshaft, I for one is going to use ZDDP provided dilution recommendation and start adding ZDDP. Like you said, by the time I realize "I should have" will be too late.
https://zddplus.com/wp-content/uploa...ution-rev4.pdf

[Hib Halverson]

Originally Posted by Paul Workman

(snip)
1) the original spec from Lotus was for oil with ZDDP in the 1200/1300 region.

"Regular" Mobil 1, isn't close. The "High-Mileage is close. Other oil choices, such as Driven LS30 are closer yet and are a better choice because of it's mPAO base stock.

2) Significant evidence exists to suggest less is not more, when it comes to ZDDP and these motors.

Paul Workman gets the hump-day "Beacon of Reality Award" for that

In short: ZDDP additives in PPM quantities significantly higher than that specified for the latest (and especially for non-competition or aggressive driving situations, is highly recommended.

But then, we're taking away the award for that because it's complete B.S., ie: if you have 1100-1300-ppm ZDDP, you don't need any more and, in fact, "quantities significantly higher" will damage the cam and lifters with "chemical wear."

ALSO! in a survey of driving habits of ZR-1 owners, now several years old, I was shocked to learn that ~ 60% of them seldom if ever tickled the stock rev limiter (7100 rpm), and a good many of them admitted they seldom if ever reved to 6000 rpm! [/quote]

Bunch of freakin' sissys.

Oh yeah, the rev limiter is actually at 7072. I should know. I tagged it every so often on late 1-2 upshifts. I always felt like a dumb-*** when shifted sloppy like that. The Automasters Street Skinner engine I had in Barney was all done by about 6400 so I always used 6800 as my shift point, but, I won't lie to you...every so often I'd run it to 7000 just to hear the noise.