Charles Navarro

I tested a very similar product, made by Schaeffer's, which makes all the same claims and too says it uses Micron Moly. It had no Zn, P, or moly! I haven't tested this particular product, but I'm willing to bet it's the exact same product, just repackaged for marketing purposes. In fact, I actually have been reading that manufacturers are looking to eliminate moly because of the deposits they form in engines. I will bookmark this product and add it to my list to have tested out of curiousity.

It's pretty much safe to say that 99% of oil additives are un-necessary whose effect is questionable. The only oil additives I recommend are GM EOS and STP 4-cyl treatment (red bottle), only if the oil being used doesn't have the needed Zn and P.

GothingNC

Charles,

I just picked up tome Rotella 15-40 and just before I started to change the oil I read a thread somewhere that Rotella-T does not contain any Moly.

Is this true?

If so, should I just return the oil and pick up Synthetic?

Thanks !

John

Charles Navarro

Rotella does not have any moly, both the 15w40 or the 5w40 syn. For reference, M1 15w50 has about 100ppm. The oil with the second highest levels I tested was RP Max Cycle 20w50, with 640ppm.

The highest was a Torco semi-synthetic API SG.JASO MA V-twin 20w50, with a whopping 1396ppm. This oil also had the highest levels of magnesium and the highest TBN I have ever seen short of Amsoil, with 13.12! In amsoil's own motorcycle tests, this oil nearly beat or matched m1 and amsoil in some of their tests. That said, it's a very expensive semi-syn, and relatively hard to get.

There is some debate as to the deliterious effects of moly. From what I have gathered, the VW 501 and 502 oil standards seem to call for the omission of moly from oils. From what I have been told, Moly builds up where it shouldn't. Must not be a problem with Porsche, since m1 has it.

For reference, VR-1 has no moly either. Castrol GTX has ~200ppm. Mobil Delvac 1300 Super and Delvac 1 have slightly less moly, ~67ppm. The amsoil product I tested had no moly either.

Mike Murphy

Why there is no separate oil forum in Rennlist, I will never know...

glenncof

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...ech/index.html

This Hot Rod Mag article appears to be a good explanation of the issue, especially page 3.

The Hughes Engine referenced above recommendation for "molybdenum carbamate" as a ZDDP replacement is a lead that may be worth following but something other than flat tappets would be needed to drive it mainstream.

I knew I would get a headache if I started to investigate....changing oils.

But it does look like the trend to reduced Zinc/Phos levels is well underway as is important consideration for flat tappets.

Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems

Indeed, and it has the same ramifications for air-cooled 911 engines, based on what I've seen to date....

Charles Navarro

I just read an article about how ZDDP does what it does and they discussed ZF (zinc-free) anti-wear compounds and suggested that boron, silicon, and even iron are some of the newest AW additives being used. Having tested a lot of oils, I see that Mobil has been putting boron in their oils for a while now. Even a few oils had high levels of silicon now that I think about it. A lot of the new API SM oils have boron as well, to offset this reduction in Zn and P. But interesting as well is the fact that boron does not work as an AW additive unless in the presence of Zn - somehow the Zn allows for the formation of the AW film itself. I find this all fascinating :-)

I have yet to test the new CJ-4 Rotella T (or any other revised CJ-4 diesel oils for that matter), but will do so later this year. I might venture to say, all things equal, that Mobil's Delvac 1300 Super may provide better protection than Rotella T, because of the added boron.

For those who have been following my testing, I was intrigued by the performance of Brad Penn / Penn Grade Racing 20w50 (dino oil) in some actual highway testing versus Castrol GTX, Royal Purple, and even Mobil 1. I know of two race engines that we're going to use Brad Penn / Penn Grade Racing 20w50 exclusively and see what everything looks like after 50 or so hours, given these engines in past seasons have been run on Castrol GTX 20w50. (one is a 356, the other a 914).

Doug Hillary

Hi,
perhaps I got this Thread wrong but I thought is was about adding supplementary Additives to existing engine lubricants

Perhaps these comments may add another perspective to the posts so far;

1 - Adding supplementary additives to an existing engine lubricant
IMHO perhaps the greatest negative about simply adding a supplementary additive to an existing "known" lubricant (EKL) is the very real risk of additive "clash". This occurs where the supplementary additives have an off set and negative "product" from mixing with the EKL's inbuilt additive mix
A virgin EKL's structure is the result of very experienced Lubrication Engineers/Chemists/Blenders using Additive Packages from a small group of Additive Package suppliers. The world of advanced Chemistry is alive and well here
Sometimes, but very rarely, the mix may be wrong.

I know of one instance involving a known Oil Company and an advanced Ester based Porsche Approved engine lubricant that was introduced in the early 1990's
This was from a Company that I had previously worked with in developing an excellent petrol engine synthetic in the early 1980s and an advanced formulation semi-synthetic diesel engine lubricant in the early 1990s. Both are still in the market place today and have developed great reputations
The offending Ester based lubricant was reformulated at least four times. It was totally withdrawn from sale less that four years after its introduction

I would advise against adding any additive to an EKL! Well, that is unless you are an experienced Lubrication Engineer or suitably qualified Chemist that is

2 - EKL formulations (comments on "Zinc" follow later)
The EKL's formulation is the product of advanced Base Lubricants and very sophisticated Additive Packages that are tailor made for the purpose. The purpose may be to meet the needs of regulatory bodies like the API or ACEA. Many engine manufacturer's have special requirements that must be met too - such as by Porsche's testing and Approval Listing of lubricants process

3 - Heavy Duty Engine Oils - "Diesel engine" lubricants (HDEOs)
Care must be taken when using an HDEO in a petrol engine. As a precaution it is wise to ONLY use HDEOs that are "Mixed Fleet" compatible. These have both Diesel and Petrol API quality ratings such as (CI-4/SL etc)
There is a real risk in using a Diesel engine lubricant that has a high Sulphated Ash (SA) rating and having a higher Total Base Number (TBN) than really necessary

All HDEOs must have a High Temperature High Shear (HTHS) viscosity of 3.7cSt.
This is above the HTHS 3.6cSt vis. minimum mandated by Porsche for their engines
Most HDEOs are especially formulated to handle Soot and its effects in circulation

Many heavy high speed diesel engine can only use synthetic lubricants that don't have any Viscosity Index Improvers (VII)

4 - Additives used in EKL
Many advanced anti wear (AW), extreme pressure (EP) and other additives must be used in accurate proportions to ensure a desirable end result. For instance the Japanese engine maker's (JAMA) studies have shown "...that in some cases, higher than acceptable wear was observed at 0.05% (mass) phosphorus while at 0.06%, wear was improved to an acceptable level..."

Even this small variation in content demonstrates how the interrelationship of the very sophisticated Chemicals used in the Additive package is extremely important in reaching and maintaining lubricant performance levels

New and very advanced Chemicals used in engine lubricants are now exceeding the performance of older more well known Chemicals such as ZDDP which has been well used since the late 1950s. It was relatively cheap and available. Blenders used it at phosphorous levels of up to perhaps 0.14%. At these levels it has proven to be hard on catalysts

As well, ZDDPs can constitute up to 20% of the SA of virgin engine lubricant. High TBNs may help disclose this fact without a Virgin Oil Analysis (VOA).
At such high SA levels the formation of undesirable levels of ring/piston deposits is possible in certain engine designs.
It is wise to remember that engine lubricants can take up to five minutes to circulate through the ring pack. Viscous mineral oils are the slowest

ZDDP (Phosphorus/Zink/Sulphur) has the Sulphur atom acting as a metal bonding activator and has a slight Friction Modifying (FM) effect.
The new types of Zinc replacements such as ZDTC and other AW "devices" such as Borate Esters, concentrated Calcium and various new Esters have proven in many ways to be superior to the old chemical regime.
ExxonMobil for instance appears to be using known compounds such as esterfied Chorinated Polyaryl as AW and EP agents

Small amounts of ZDDP will be around for a long time yet and I suspect in a range around 0.06% to 0.08%. Less will induce cam component wear and more has other undesirable consequences

5 - Mineral, Semi-synthetic and synthetic engine lubricants
Fully synthetic engine lubricants (especially Group 5) usually have less conventional performance Additives in their formulation than both Mineral and Semi-synthetics require

It is difficult to judge the AW merits of either type of engine lubricant and there is no conclusive evidence that any Brand/Model engine lubricant meeting the same specification/standards will significantly prolong the life on an engine against another Brand/Model. At the extremes, a synthetic will outperform the others in high and low temperature operation, in engine cleanliness and in flow performance - and perhaps in some other areas too. Oxidation caused by high temperatures is greatly reduced with the use of synthetics so consumption is usually kept well under control as the lubricant ages

A downside in concept is that most synthetics will show a lower oil pressure especially at idle. The flow performance will be better however and will be achieved with less turbulence

Some cam component wear can be traced to engine lubricants that don't flow well at lower temperatures, don't circulate well due to flow turbulence, remain in oil filter differential by-pass for extended periods during warm up and have an unsuitable TBN

Many modern Group 3 semi-synthetic lubricants will out perform fully synthetic Group 4 lubricants and at a much cheaper price. These are manufactured by Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Castrol and/or their affiliates and etc and use advanced additive packages

6 - Viscosity
It is always wise to use the viscosity recommended by the engine's manufacturer for the ambient and purpose intended. What is important is to use the correct HTHS viscosity that is suitable for the particular engine and the way it is used

Racing engines may benefit from the use of base lubricants modified by the services of a Lubrication Engineer and Chemist - ask Ferrari and etc.

Oils ain't oils

I hope this adds another perspective

ked

Doug, this is a great overview - many thanks! Most of us on this particular forum are focused on 911s from their inception to '89. Of course, the whole gamut are represented, from very high mileage on their last legs, to recently rebuilt to spec & very hi-perf / racing engines - and everything in between. I think it would be very helpful for an expert (like yourself) to advise us on our specific requirements - what does all this mean for our decision-making? Remember, we have air/oil cooled motors and many of us don't have cats. "what would Doug do?" Again, thanks for your expertise!

Charles Navarro

I would still say to use an oil from the get go that has 0.10% Zn and P or higher (no more than 0.14%), then you don't need to use an additive to boost that level.

The new API SM oils with their 0.05%-0.08% Zn and P are not acceptable IMHO for our engines and increased levels of wear appearing over the last 5 years give credence to this statement.

Daniel Dudley

I think at some point a ''Classic'' motor oil will be marketed in the US by a major manufacturer.

Until then I will be looking at my 911 as a special needs engine. I have to agree with Charles, that at this point Zinc is the big issue. I also agree with Doug that mixing and matching additives is a crapshoot, although I would think that GM and STP would probably have their stuff in order. I am thinking now that Mobil 1 is probably the minimum protection required in our cars. It saddens me to see great products degrading in performance, but I see the need. Prehaps the moly in M1 is to offset the lower Zinc content?

I think a lot of the controversy stems from the fact that many of us are concerned now, and looking for a ''this is the one'' reccomendation. What I am getting from Charles is that there are SOME good choices out there, and many bad ones, some of which may have been good until fairly recently.

Prehaps we need a "Reccomended 911 Oils'' list, or ''911 Oils for Dummies'' thread. I'm a man. And like a jet on the runway, I need clear signals. The answers are all out there, but after 20 pages or so, what is clear gets blurred. This is so important that it should have it's own spot right up in the read this section.

Doug Hillary

Hi,
I am pleased to give a viewpoint along with the other practised people in the Forum - it will be just that - a viewpoint

Firstly engine/component life expectation is a very subjective issue. It is worth remembering that first life to rebuild of most engines in the 1950s-1960s was 50k miles. With today's engines it is 100-200k miles. With heavy diesels it was around 100k miles but I have had engines out to over 1m miles without attention

Excessive cam wear has been a recurring issue with many engines both - petrol and diesel - over many decades. There is no doubt that introducing large doses of ZDDP in lubricants masked some manufacturing and design shortcomings. Cummins for instance would have a large dossier on their Big cam 1, 2 and 3 series and M11 engines

I first became involved with aircooled engines in motorbikes (Norton, Triumph and BSA) and from 1956 via Volkswagen and later when I lived in Denmark with Porsche 912/911s

VW recommended mono grade oils (20w-20, 30, 40) for sound reasons and my own research which commenced with BMC in New Zealand, showed very clearly that HDEOs (then the CAT Series 3 (and supplements) quality standard) offered very significant benefits in engine cleanliness and durability over conventional petrol engine lubricants. They maintained cleanliness in engines that did not "breath" too well and they maintained viscosity etc. with reduced component wear

I carried on this practical research on in Copenhagen where I worked for Caltex-Chevron (from 1966) in a Technical Training role. Used in a wide variety of engines ranging from Benzes and Volvos to Volga, Moskvitch, Tatras and aircooled French, Russian, Italian, German (Deutz) engines. The results were most conclusive. The engines benefited from the higher additive levels in the diesel engine formulated lubricants and confirmed what I had discovered in NZ with BMC and GM, Chrysler and Ford engines

It became very obvious why Porsche factory filled with Shell Rotella (or Rimula)

In this period three Oil Companies products excelled - Shell, Chevron and Mobil's Delvac range. This was all before the widespread use of ZDDP

I have used HDEOs in most engines ever since - before synthetics were readily available and thereafter - as the application presented itself. For nearly 50 years and over many many millions of kms

Today there are many excellent "Mixed Fleet" HDEOs available today from the "Majors"
I use ExxonMobil's Delvac 1 5w-40 in my 928S4 and so do many others on this Forum (928) and here in OZ. In the 928 Forum there are around 11 Used Oil Analysis results from my 928

For 911s prior to 1974
I would happily use a 15w-40 viscosity Mixed Fleet HDEO such as Castrol RX Super, some Delvac variants and those from Shell (Rotella/Rimula), Chevron (Delo), Esso, Valvoline, Pennzoil and etc.
Some of these are semi-synthetics and truely excellent products!
A 15w-40 viscosity HDEO lubricant (SAE40) is suitable for use between -15C and >40C
Mixed Fleet synthetic 5w-40 HDEOs are even better if you are comfortable with synthetics and are suitable for use down to -25C and 40C

Remember that all SAE40 (15w-40) lubricants are not the same viscosity in real terms
All must fit into a viscosity band (at 100C) of from 12.5cSt to <16.3cSt so some may be less viscous than others when hot. Rotella ‘T" for instance has 15.7cSt, one version of Delvac has 13.6cSt. The Delvac 1 5w-40 synthetic that I use has 14.8cSt

Most of the better HDEOs will have a HTHS (150C) viscosity over 4cSt which comfortably exceeds the Porsche minimum of 3.5cSt. This is probably most beneficial in the cam component and turbo-charger regions

For low use 911 engines that are stored a lot of the time, a Mixed fleet HDEO with Vapour Phase Inhibitor can be safely used. This additive emits a corrosion inhibiting vapour to passivate metal surfaces and protect internal "exposed" parts. These HDEOs are used in the Farming and Construction Industry

None of these oils are Approved/Listed by Porsche simply because they have never been tested - they are diesel oils! They would pass their most relevant test protocols with ease.

For 911s after 1974
Porsche Approved and Listed lubricants will do a great job in all FI Porsche engines and should be the first choice. The factory will have monitored the "cams" issue and oils have been added to and omitted from the Approved List on a regular basis for a variety of reasons

My second choice for up to MY89 911's is as stated for the earlier cars

Racing use is another issue and should be the subject of some serious investigation as it usually is

Today there are really no "bad" oils - but some formulations are just simply "better" than others. Sadly there is much misleading and irrelevant advertising and hype like Amsoil's 4 ball wear test reports for instance

Simply focussing on one aspect of a modern engine lubricant's formulation may be counterproductive. It could lead to the wrong assumptions being made about the marvellous mix of chemicals that make up a modern and engine maker Approved engine lubricant

I hope this is of some value

Matt Romanowski

Doug, thanks for the info! It's truly great. Can you expound on the Amsoil 4 Ball Test?

Doug Hillary

Hi Matt,
some Oil Companies tend to "merchandise" their own test regimes to compare competitors products -Amsoil's use of a "4 Ball" test is one of these. Most of these types of tests show up their particular product as the best performer

The 4 Ball tests (ASTM D4172 & D2266) are used to compare lubricant or grease formulations and structure, measuring wear or friction. In reality, it does not apply to engine oils in a meaningful sense and is not used by the other Oil Companies for this reason.
There are other more appropriate engine lubricant test protocols
The grease test (D2266) is appropriate and is commonly used as a grease EP test protocol

Amsoil no doubt makes some very good products even if many of them are not Manufacturer, API or ACEA tested or Certified. As one major engine maker has stated "Beware that some marketers may indicate that their products "meet" API (or ACEA) requirements. This is not adequate"

Regards

ked

Doug, We are very fortunate to have the benefit of your detailed knowledge, career-long experience (Tatras!) and insight to guide our own decisions. Many thanks for your willingness to share it with all of us consumers. {& Charles, too}. Cheers!