Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345
Results 41 to 42 of 42
  1. #41
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,915
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Tractor
    Ford 3930

    Default Re: The age old question .....Synthetic or not

    Quote Originally Posted by Gale Hawkins View Post
    Some ZDDP education

    Above is the full text source of the quote below.
    "'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.- Thanks to Bob Olree GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group "

    I am going to run with source this until I get different data. The bottom line per this 'GM' claiming source is as explained in detail the 800 ppm of zinc additive package is all that was ever needed to protect flat tappets and more was added for other reasons so the newest API standard for gas engines WILL protect flat tappets as well as any motor oil API standard ever produced.

    The plan is to stick with 5W-40 Rotella in the tractors and big block Ford and Chevy and other things around the place like mowers etc.

    I will work my way to Mobil 1 5W-30 for the 2003 5.3L GM engine with 126K miles.

    Short of it is that the need for high zinc for flat tappets is a MYTH.

    http://www.api.org/certifications/en..._march2010.pdf
    API Gas/Diesel chart.

    GM debunks ZDDP myths for flat tappet cams - Bob Is The Oil Guy
    This restates some of the first link but also covers other OIL Myths.
    Well Gale, let's hope this plays out as described.

    If I had a Leno type problem (untold # of high perf olde school big block classics running really radical cams), then I'd be even more concerned about ZDDP. I get that this class of vintage motor is the worst case for this issue.

    A couple of things are nagging at me about the general use scenario though.....

    1) The Cat "failures" due to ZDDP contamination has a Create a Crisis, to Drive an Agenda feel to it.

    I was reading somewhere recently that the industry couldn't even come up with an agreed upon standard test for this "contamination" issue. My experience, and anecdotal data, indicate that there was very little ZDDP contamination of Cats going on.

    2) #1 above leads into #2 - I'll be a little surprised if the EPA stops at 800ppm. We'll see.

    3) What does the gubmint consider acceptable Collateral Damage ? I don't know the answer.

    If 75% of the old vehicle fleet immediately seized their engines due to an oil spec change, then politically, the noise would probably be unacceptable.

    But what if it hits only 0.5%, or even 5% of the old vehicle fleet ? Probably that would be politically acceptable, esp. since it addresses various other agendas.

    A good example of the Acceptable Collateral Damage trade-offs that Gubmints are willing to make is the Acceptable Wear Scar limit for ULSD - the US govt mandated a higher limit than the engine manufacturers had spec'd as the maximum acceptable.

    Woulda liked to be a fly on that wall, during those closed discussions.....

    4) VW has recently had some serious issues with engine lube related wear failures. I don't drive a VW, so I haven't really dug into this research wise, but I keep tripping over discussions of these failures, the last 2 years or so.

    I stumbled through a time portal today..... CTC here had some Rotella T5 on sale.

    Here (Canada) we get a 0W40 T5 that is CG-4 and SJ rated (ie. no later C or S ratings), full Synthetic. This will be really nice in my tractor in the Winter, as my battery is slightly undersized. I haven't paid too much attention to the T5 before, as the prior grades were semi-synth that sold for pretty much the same price as T6.

    Up here at least, Shell seems to be marketing this 0W40 as a modern offering for older spec diesels, and older gas too.

    Some other night, I'm going to poke around on BITOG to verify the Zinc and Phosphorus levels of this particular T5.

    Rgds, D.
    Last edited by 3930dave; 03-03-2013 at 11:05 PM. Reason: clarity

  2. #42
    Silver Member Copperhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    109
    Location
    Central Iowa

    Default Re: The age old question .....Synthetic or not

    Quote Originally Posted by kenmac View Post
    I like to see what the virgin TBN levels are on DELO dino. I would doubt 12 as Amsoil does.The thing about Amsoil is, They have nothing to hide. I have had no problem with them telling me that they have xxx in their oil. That's more than I can say about Mobil.Amsoil has worked for me (Diesel or gas) better than any dino oil I have ever used. Delo ,Rotella,Valovine, etc
    No, the Delo does not have 12 TBN as the Amsoil AME does. The other Amsoil products do not either. But it is all relative anyway. It all depends on how long someone is keeping the oil in the engine before changing, and if there are other issues that are depleting the package faster than normal. When you can take something like Delo 400 LE 15w40 conventional with a TBN of 9.6 out to 70,000 mile oil change intervals in Delo's test project with Detroit DD15 commercial engines, does it really matter at that point if the oil has a 12 TBN package or not? How about the synthetic version that has a 10.3 TBN? By the way, which is similar to other products in the Amsoil lineup.

    This has been my contention for many years, so many folks get caught up in marketing hype, yet few have any true working numbers to show in testing that Brand A doesn't perform as well as Brand B. All of the major brands will perform well. It is true, that various engines do show a preference toward a particular brand, much the same as a person's .22 rifle seems to perform better with Brand A ammo compared to Brand B ammo, yet both are high quality ammo products. It is all based on a comfort level anyway. If one person feels best about using Brand X synthetic, who am I to chide them. If they are getting the results they desire, cool. I am a business man. I have to dump a lot of money each year into the maintenance black hole. I will try something, but if it is not getting the results for the cost, it goes by the wayside. And for me, in my application and operation, synthetic just wasn't the killer thing that makes a difference. For my Jeep Liberty Diesel, another story. For my NH Cut, another story again. Those are so darn cheap to run even the most expensive oil on the planet compared to my semi, that I would have no problem dropping in the high priced Brand X synthetic. It is only a few quarts. But I would have no empirical evidence that it actually made a major difference. I would just feel more warm and fuzzy for doing it.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345

Similar Threads

  1. Comparison Age Old Question
    By hhjpg0 in forum Buying/Pricing/Comparisons
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-13-2011, 09:43 AM
  2. TBN age old question
    By rogdan in forum Buying/Pricing/Comparisons
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-18-2006, 06:59 PM
  3. l3400, l3130, b3030 the age old question..
    By ChevyGuy in forum Kubota Buying/Pricing
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-09-2005, 09:53 AM
  4. BX2200 Vs B7500: The Age Old Question
    By dtmarion in forum Kubota Owning/Operating
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 11-18-2001, 09:51 PM
  5. Age old question.
    By Thomas in forum Customization
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-08-2001, 08:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
© 2014 TractorByNet.com. TractorByNet is a registered trademark of IMC Digital Universe, Inc. Other trademarks on this page are the property of their respective owners.