Oil Myths from GM TechLink

pacos87gn · 12-13-2007, 08:10 AM

I found this in this months GM Techlink Magazine we get at the dealership. Thought i'd share it with everyone
Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths (fig. 1). Here are some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the fiction behind these myths.

The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania (fig. 2).
A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.
Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the unfamiliar are somehow "bad."

The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent engine oils
are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as “heavy-duty” oil.

Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil consumption. After a thorough purge by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible consequence.

If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place, 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 many years for an oil myth to die.

The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put this one to rest.

The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) (fig. 3 and 4) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).

Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability.

ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942.

In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range.

In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests.

A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%. And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.

By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range.

However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.

Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth 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 facts say otherwise.

Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.

The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests.

- Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.

- Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s (fig. 5).

Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. (True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)

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 probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also.

- Thanks to Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group

turbofish38 · 12-13-2007, 12:15 PM

Thanks for sharing that. The myth of ZDP clears up a lot of things for me. I've been running Mobil1 exclusively in my turbo cars since day 1. I'm definetly not on that "sky is falling 'cause of no ZDP" band wagon. Oh chit! I shouldn't have said that. Guess this thread is going to turn out to be a ZDDP pros and cons thread. Sorry.

It amazes me how many people think that the factory engineers dont know crap about anything. Testament to their infinite wisdom is evidenced every time you start your car. What do think? None of these guys are into racing or old cars?

BTW I recieved this bulletin the other day concerning EOS.

TO GM DEALERS (INCLUDING MD TRUCK)

DESCRIPTION:
GM Vehicle Care announces our new E.O.S. (Engine Oil Supplement) Assembly Lubricant, part number 88862586. This product replaces part number 1052367. GM E.O.S. Assembly Lubricant is specifically formulated as an engine assembly lubricant that provides outstanding protection against run-in wear and piston scuffing, as well as run-in camshaft lube and lifter scuffing resulting from insufficient lubrication.

EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately

BrightSilverT · 12-13-2007, 12:27 PM

Hmmmm...LOVE to get Kirban & Richard Clark's Opionin on this!!???

TurboDave · 12-13-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrightSilverT

Hmmmm...LOVE to get Kirban & Richard Clark's Opionin on this!!???

Why? Are they lubricant engineers/experts?

87GTA-turbo · 12-13-2007, 02:19 PM

Good read.

Another myth I read about was the 3 month/3,000 mile drain interval.
Where in Europe its more like 6 month/5,000 miles.

1980monteturbo · 12-13-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 87GTA-turbo

Good read.

Another myth I read about was the 3 month/3,000 mile drain interval.
Where in Europe its more like 6 month/5,000 miles.

Here is whats on my visor. Maybe different for non turbo'd motors.

Richard Clarks opinions are very credible IMO. Check out his posts on the other site. Hope he has a chance to stop by here.

ULYCYC · 12-13-2007, 02:51 PM

Only the bottles of ZDDP signed by Molly are effective

Zap's Master and Superior · 12-13-2007, 03:05 PM

Your link is siezed. Maybe it needs some ZDDP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1980monteturbo

1980 Monte Carlo ( Factory Turbo'd )
1 of 706 made for export ( metric )
Conversion from factory LC8 V6 to V8 then '87 LC2/200r 12-bolt.
Stock turbo, stock injectors, stock I/C,....for now, 212/212 cam, LT1 springs, 2800 stall, hotwired Walbro, adj fp reg,
K & N, Powerplate, 3" Kirban dp ported stock elbow, dual Hooker super comp mufflers, Carter street chip, Turbosmart, Air bags, Bettie Page air freshener.

Check it out a

Zap's Master and Superior · 12-13-2007, 03:06 PM

And F all of ya'll. I use Slick 50.

1980monteturbo · 12-13-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap's Master and Superior

Your link is siezed. Maybe it needs some ZDDP.

The "check it out" link ? I just tried it, ( Cardomain ) I might be loading from the cache .
thanks

turbomonte2 · 12-13-2007, 04:58 PM

About a month or so ago (on the other site perhaps) I asked Richard C. about the Zn & P levels in Valvoline VR-1 Racing oil--as that's what I've been using--& his answer was he didn't know or have time/$$ to test all oils (certainly true IMO too)...

Well, according to Valvoline's website, BOTH their 10W-30 & 20W-50 VR-1 oils contain 0.130% Zn & 0.120% P--just like SAE 30, 40 & 50 straight grades. Altho I bo't some ZDDP from Richard/Kirbans, I'm now very comfortable with this (these VR-1 concentrations) & will continue to use just the VR-1 oils & keeps tabs on Valvoline's website for any changes!!

Steve Wood · 12-13-2007, 05:06 PM

Interesting to note that certain cam companies...such as Comp and Crane feel differently with regard to the opinions of the GM Lube department.

Perhaps the fact that racing cams often use considerably more spring pressure than factory cams may have something to do with their observations?

I would guess that both agree the largest chance of failure comes from the break in period....least that is what I read.

With regard to oil change frequency, most factory proscribed frequencies are considerably longer than what oil companies and their own dealership service departments promote. I think most can come to the obvious conclusion.

TurboDave · 12-13-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Wood

Interesting to note that certain cam companies...such as Comp and Crane feel differently with regard to the opinions of the GM Lube department.

Perhaps the fact that racing cams often use considerably more spring pressure than factory cams may have something to do with their observations?

I would guess that both agree the largest chance of failure comes from the break in period....least that is what I read.

With regard to oil change frequency, most factory proscribed frequencies are considerably longer than what oil companies and their own dealership service departments promote. I think most can come to the obvious conclusion.

I think we'd have to agree though that the oil companies have a vested interest in frequent change intervals that they recommend.

Zap's Master and Superior · 12-13-2007, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1980monteturbo

The "check it out" link ? I just tried it, ( Cardomain ) I might be loading from the cache .
thanks

OK link works now.

Great site btw.

MR Buick · 12-13-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbomonte2

About a month or so ago (on the other site perhaps) I asked Richard C. about the Zn & P levels in Valvoline VR-1 Racing oil--as that's what I've been using--& his answer was he didn't know or have time/$$ to test all oils (certainly true IMO too)...

Well, according to Valvoline's website, BOTH their 10W-30 & 20W-50 VR-1 oils contain 0.130% Zn & 0.120% P--just like SAE 30, 40 & 50 straight grades. Altho I bo't some ZDDP from Richard/Kirbans, I'm now very comfortable with this (these VR-1 concentrations) & will continue to use just the VR-1 oils & keeps tabs on Valvoline's website for any changes!!

What oil change intervals are recommended for Valvoline Racing Oil?Some racing oils require frequent changes,some every race.I wonder how that would apply to a mostly street driven car?

12-13-2007, 08:10 AM	#1 (permalink)
pacos87gn Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 38	Oil Myths from GM TechLink I found this in this months GM Techlink Magazine we get at the dealership. Thought i'd share it with everyone Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths (fig. 1). Here are some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the fiction behind these myths. The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania (fig. 2). A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil. Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the unfamiliar are somehow "bad." The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent engine oils are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as “heavy-duty” oil. Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil consumption. After a thorough purge by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible consequence. If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place, 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 many years for an oil myth to die. The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put this one to rest. The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) (fig. 3 and 4) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP). Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability. ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942. In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range. In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests. A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%. And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling. By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range. However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus. Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth 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 facts say otherwise. Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered. The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests. - Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers. - Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s (fig. 5). Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. (True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.) 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 probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also. - Thanks to Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group __________________ 86 gn hard top touch climate contro,gnx vents,rebuilt trans,trans goshift kit, supiorior super servo,10 inch 3200 lock up convert.,postons 107t cam,rebuilt engine,port matched intake,poston headers,crossover,cheetah turbo,3 inch terry houston down pipe,hooker exhaust,50 lbs injectors,turbo tweak chip,hotwired walbro 255 fuel pump,postons gauge pods, 87 t top gn another gn resto in the process along with a 84 regal with plans for a 455

12-13-2007, 12:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
turbofish38 Turbocharged BrunoStachel Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Deltona,FL,USA Posts: 4,756	Thanks for sharing that. The myth of ZDP clears up a lot of things for me. I've been running Mobil1 exclusively in my turbo cars since day 1. I'm definetly not on that "sky is falling 'cause of no ZDP" band wagon. Oh chit! I shouldn't have said that. Guess this thread is going to turn out to be a ZDDP pros and cons thread. Sorry. It amazes me how many people think that the factory engineers dont know crap about anything. Testament to their infinite wisdom is evidenced every time you start your car. What do think? None of these guys are into racing or old cars? BTW I recieved this bulletin the other day concerning EOS. TO GM DEALERS (INCLUDING MD TRUCK) DESCRIPTION: GM Vehicle Care announces our new E.O.S. (Engine Oil Supplement) Assembly Lubricant, part number 88862586. This product replaces part number 1052367. GM E.O.S. Assembly Lubricant is specifically formulated as an engine assembly lubricant that provides outstanding protection against run-in wear and piston scuffing, as well as run-in camshaft lube and lifter scuffing resulting from insufficient lubrication. EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately __________________ Eric Fisher OEM Parts Specialist www.gbodyparts.com 252-332-8787 e-mail me at turbofish38@hotmail.com 86 GN 11.80@115 TA49,60# Mototrons,TT chip and stock intercooler SCCA Regional Champion. Nebraska Region 1997 1986 Buick Grand National E/StreetPrepared Stay Boosted My Friends

12-13-2007, 12:27 PM	#3 (permalink)
BrightSilverT Registered User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Beautiful Berks County, Pennsylvania Posts: 645	Hmmmm...LOVE to get Kirban & Richard Clark's Opionin on this!!??? __________________ Nice 10,000 Orig, mile 86 T-Type!

12-13-2007, 02:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
87GTA-turbo Stupidest man alive. Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Beaufort, SC Posts: 2,419	Good read. Another myth I read about was the 3 month/3,000 mile drain interval. Where in Europe its more like 6 month/5,000 miles. __________________ Steve- “It only gets worse...." 1987 GN, Moonroof, GNX dash, 109 .030 TRW Forged TE-62, G Body DP, 204/214cam, 60-65 Siemens inj, Extender chip, LS1 MAF, port matched intake and heads, Razor's Alky, Hotwired Denso 280 pump, Extreme Trans, Pats 3200 11 in. conv, Metco LCA's Monitored by:PLX WB, EGT, SM & DS 11.8 @ 117 w/ the 4.1 (RIP) 7/08 1987 Gray Regal T LS1 MAF, 32lb inj, Chip, mostly stock 2001 Jeep Cherokee 4.0 I6 4x4

12-13-2007, 02:51 PM	#7 (permalink)
ULYCYC Fuhgeddaboudit Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 16,721	Only the bottles of ZDDP signed by Molly are effective __________________ ED BAKER 87-T, Maplight equipped rear view mirror.. 93 PARK AVE"SUPERCHARGED" BPG#1458 My Photo Page buickperformancegroup.com "As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."---H.L. Mencken 1927

12-13-2007, 03:06 PM	#9 (permalink)
Zap's Master and Superior Spiritual Advisor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: 147 MLK blvd. The Great Wall Of China Suburbs : Section 8 Posts: 3,474	And F all of ya'll. I use Slick 50. __________________ Yao Min-Wood ♦ DSR's Minister of Foreign Affairs Member #69 The Gayest statement made on the internet EVER. TBS.com most memorable quote EVER.

12-13-2007, 04:58 PM	#11 (permalink)
turbomonte2 Older--but Getting Wiser Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Myrtle Beach, SC Posts: 2,020	About a month or so ago (on the other site perhaps) I asked Richard C. about the Zn & P levels in Valvoline VR-1 Racing oil--as that's what I've been using--& his answer was he didn't know or have time/$$ to test all oils (certainly true IMO too)... Well, according to Valvoline's website, BOTH their 10W-30 & 20W-50 VR-1 oils contain 0.130% Zn & 0.120% P--just like SAE 30, 40 & 50 straight grades. Altho I bo't some ZDDP from Richard/Kirbans, I'm now very comfortable with this (these VR-1 concentrations) & will continue to use just the VR-1 oils & keeps tabs on Valvoline's website for any changes!! __________________ Monte 87GN, TE60, 23#, 60#Injrs, 214/214 hyd roller, Mild-ported hds & int, Dutt Nk, V booster, Old-style SMC alky, Q-Boost, Remote Oil Filter/Turbo Saver, KB 3" down & test pipe w/ cut-out, TTwk93-alky, SM 2.1, 3000 stall CK 10.5" L/U, CK Stg2 tranny kit+ some hard parts, Ext trans cooler, Dual 2.5" Hookers, Frt & bk braces, Hollow 36mm frt bar + Bilsteins, Air Bags + KYBs, Hotwired Wlbro/Racetronix GSS340M(new), 255x60x15 street meats, Factory Astroroof...Just replaced as my Daily-Driver by a '00 Ford Focus. Some other stuff laying around: 51 Merc Cpe, 49 Ford/T-Bird, 83 Riviera Conv, 96 F-150 5.8L "Pig" 4x4 tow vehicle, '00 Ford Focus as "new" Daily Driver...

12-13-2007, 05:06 PM	#12 (permalink)
Steve Wood An American American Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: East of Eden, Texas Posts: 37,175	Interesting to note that certain cam companies...such as Comp and Crane feel differently with regard to the opinions of the GM Lube department. Perhaps the fact that racing cams often use considerably more spring pressure than factory cams may have something to do with their observations? I would guess that both agree the largest chance of failure comes from the break in period....least that is what I read. With regard to oil change frequency, most factory proscribed frequencies are considerably longer than what oil companies and their own dealership service departments promote. I think most can come to the obvious conclusion. __________________ ------------------ 'A government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take away everything you have.' - Thomas Jefferson I think one should worry more when people are lining up to get out of a country rather than into it. If they're sneaking in, we must be doing something right. The Chronicles of Zap, from the early 21st century www.vortexbuicks-etc.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Oil Pan Leak	chrisgarrett46	Buick V6 Turbo Tech	43	07-04-2006 10:04 AM
General Motors Gypsies	DrTurbonicus	The Waiting Room	2	03-04-2006 02:31 PM
June GM "Employee Pricing" Program ...	kenmosher	The Waiting Room	3	06-05-2005 10:38 AM
New Oil pan vs. increased oil pressure ??	jdodman	Buick V6 Turbo Tech	2	05-31-2005 11:17 AM
Beware synthetic oil	FastwClass	The Waiting Room	12	03-30-2003 05:05 PM