Motor Oil Wear Test Results – Caution, VERY long

[joedoozer]

My oil came in at #5, I am happy with that. Although I add a zinc additive to bump the zinc and phos up to 2000.

[BrazilianZ28Camaro]

540RAT, I appreciate your effort, but I'll add my two cents ....don't forget the test you did only is valid where hydrodinamic oil wedge is formed.

On FT cammed engines, there are NO hydrodinamic oil wedge on the cam lobes/ lifter face so, the modern, SM or SN low zinc oils are DEATH to these engines.

As you might know the ZZDP is a extreme pressure additive to protect rubbing surfaces. Might be useful to the bearings on cold starts too...

I'm far from a oil expert, but this is all we hear about new oils.

[boxcartommie22]

Very interesting and thanks for sharing.

Question - specifically what makes the Lucas, Valvoline et al Racing Oils not suitable for longer term street use?

jack vines

do a voa on lucas oils and see for yourself the lame additive package this oil has!! go to www.bobistheoilguy.com

[Bob Hollinshead]

I use O Riley generic oil in all our daily drivers and in my dually with Howard's Zinc additive. When it goes on sale for $2 a quart, I buy at least 6 cases. Honestly, I thought it probably was a good oil,but I bought it based on price. I may just start running this in some race engines as well, with an additive.

Great info, thanks for the effort.

But you'll never know when O'Riley switches to another supplier and a different formula.

[nickmckinney]

I wonder if you can do the same test with one of the mating surfaces made of aluminum. Most modern (OEM) engines today the cams are riding directly on journals cut right into the aluminum heads (no bearings) and the main and rod bearings are primarily aluminum material. The engines I work on exclusively I can't think of a high pressure steel on steel point other than the rocker tip to the valve tip (and both are hardened to the point you can't even drill them)

[540 RAT]

Very interesting and thanks for sharing.

Question - specifically what makes the Lucas, Valvoline et al Racing Oils not suitable for longer term street use?

jack vines

Lucas racing only = zinc levels are so extremely high that using it for anything more than short term racing use can begin to damage the engine instead of protecting it.

Valvoline NSL = the very low TBN value in this NSL oil would require increased oil change frequency, to avoid acid build-up. And Valvoline has said that their NSL oils should be changed at least every 500 miles.

Joe Gibbs XP3 Racing Oil = the detergent and TBN levels are so very low here, that this oil should most likely be changed after every outing, before those components are totally exhausted.

[540 RAT]

I was told by Valvoline that the difference between the non street legal oil and the VR-1 was that the Non street legal oil has no detergents, and if used for extended periods of time can build up more then standard detergent oil.

Yes, I lab tested this oil and its detergent level is very low, as is its TBN level.

[540 RAT]

=D> i applaud your effort in performing this test.
We have had very positive results with the Lucas racing oil as well.
We didnt have much luck with the
Brad Penn and that lines up with what you found.

Thanks for the real world feedback, that's very good to know.

[540 RAT]

Thanks for all your hard work!!!!!verrry interesting!!!!! Would Love to see some numbers on Joe Gibbs XP1, Rotella 15-40, and Rotella 5-40 synthetic? Did you find in general that synthetics outpeformed conventionals?

Well as you can see with the test results, there was relatively little difference between the best synthetics and the best conventional oils. The only real advantage that synthetics have, is that they can withstand higher temps before breaking down.

[540 RAT]

Very interesting, I guess I should have not switched from Valvoline VR1 to Brad Penn, although its hard to tell because I run 20w50 or straight 50 and you didn't test much of that weight. I would like to see the Valvoline VR1 in 20w50 and 50, Brad Penn in 20w50 and Amsoil in zrod 20w50. Any chance you can add those to your list? I will send you a Brad Penn 20w50 if you want. Thank you for the results.

I've been testing oil on the weekends, for the last 6 weeks or so. So, I need a break to do all the things I let slide. I purposely did not test many heavy weight oils because it is not advisable to run heavy oils, for a number of reasons. But that's another whole topic on its own.

[540 RAT]

What does the test mean in a race motor?
What part of a motor would this test be applicable to?
How does that pressure from your test apply to an engine bearing which probably has more surface area than your test and is pressure fed?
Was your test made with oil on the suface of the metal alone or was it pressure fed?
I've been a "Bobs the oil guy" member for a while and seen so many test it would make your head spin.
I've run the best oils and I've run the worst oils in your test and never found any real difference in an motor oil based on this type of wear test.
I'm not saying it isn't true, I've just personally never seen it.
I'll give an example. I've got a buddy of mine that runs a solid lifter cam, 466, 12:1 compression and goes through the traps in the quarter at 7200. He runs Motorcraft 5-30 oil and has now for 7 years changing oil 1 time every year wether it's needed or not. Now his oil pan is 8 quarts so......
The motor has never been apart and has made hundreds of passes and that oil ranked low on your scale. I have another buddy that ran Royal Purple oil (not sure about the weight) and never changed it or the filter for over 5/6/7 years (he is a mechanic and own his own station). He finally ruined the motor by running it low on oil. His son checked it and didn't know what he was doing. That motor was never hurt and 5+ years on a racing motor is.....well good I would say. I have to hear him bragging about it all the time. We give him hell for ruining a perfectly good engine by running it out of oil. Both of these guys are bracket racers and race often and believe me do very little maintenance. These cars are never torn down during the off season and inspected and the valve springs are never even realsed during the winter. I do more than they do on their cars. I admit those were not the most demanding situatons but there was no roller cam in the bunch so there was metal parts making contact that wear not rollerized.
Your test if I remember right is a round piece of metal spinning and another piece is pulled or plunged into the rotating part etc.etc or pulled down onto the metal with a lever or something of the sort. Is that right?

The tester does not try to reproduce engine internal parts. It is intended for oil to oil comparison testing only. Obviously, an oil that tests very well on the tester, will perform better inside an engine than an oil that performed poorly on the tester. Reread my write-up if you want more details on the testing itself.

[540 RAT]

Thanks for all of your hard work and for sharing the results. I've spent a lot of time on the internet trying to find this information. It is virtually impossible to find anything.

Also, thanks for using 230 F instead of 100 F. This gives the test real world meaning.

As in every test it usually leaves you with more questions. You indicated that you did initial set up testing at room temperature and the results were approx. double that of the high temp. test. This begs the question as to what happens when the temperature is increased even more.

I am interested in learning more about the performance at even higher temperatures. In many (mine in particular) high RPM engines the big end of the rod distorts at high rpm and cause the bearing clearance to significantly reduce. When this occurs, the oil temperature in the bearing increases by a substantial amount. When the temperature increases the viscosity reduces, and the film strength follows suit.

A typical oil temperature increase in the bearing may be 200 F with the nominal (as assembled) clearances, but when the rod distorts and the clearances are reduced the oil temperature increase in the bearing may be 400 F more. The oils performance at these temperatures (in my opinion) is what separates a good oil from a great oil. Synthetic oils boil at a much higher temperature than pure dino oils and this makes them superior in many ways for racing applications.

The calculated connecting rod max. film pressure in my engine is ~17,000 psi and the main bearings are ~ 9,000 psi. All of the oils listed would easily meet the requirements at 230F. Because of rod distortion at high rpms I have problems with the rod bearings holding up and am getting metal to metal contact (sometimes complete bearing failure) with my current oil.

I know I may be asking for a lot, but could you test one or two of the oils in your test at a few temperatures (preferably high temperatures), so a film strength vs. temp. curve can be obtained? This general curve could act as a rough template for all of the oils in your test.

Thanks again for all of the very valuable information that you have shared.

Maybe I could get a chance to do that later on. But in the meantime, just be fully aware that as the oil temp goes up, the film strength goes down. But you should not be trying to rely on film strength at the rod bearings. They need enough liquid oil supplied to form an oil wedge to keep the parts separated. Remember liquids are not compressible, and that's what's critical here. You should look again at your oiling system. Any liquid oil will prevent metal to metal contact, and no special oil is required for that.

[540 RAT]

Interesting considering that my engines running VR1 look much worse than the ones running Brad Penn.

So far Brad Penn makes everything else look bad(methanol injected engines). Also those low zinc oils seem like they don't do so well with roller lifters. I wouldn't use any of the top oils on this list for a solid roller cam engine.

Maybe I'm just behind the times and the oils listed all got a lot better all of a sudden...

Roller lifters absolutely do not need high zinc/phos oil, they are a low friction area. When roller lifters fail (let's assume pressure fed lifters), they virtually always fail due to metal fatigue failure, not due to oiling failures. Their fatique life is determined by their spring pressure, how much lash they have, how high the max rpm, and the number of cycles they see. The more of each, reduces the fatigue life. And oil has nothing to do with any of that.

Needle type roller lifters are subject to fatigue failure at the needles, axle, roller ID and roller OD.

Bushing type roller lifters are subject to fatigue failure at the roller OD.

[540 RAT]

540RAT, I appreciate your effort, but I'll add my two cents ....don't forget the test you did only is valid where hydrodinamic oil wedge is formed.

On FT cammed engines, there are NO hydrodinamic oil wedge on the cam lobes/ lifter face so, the modern, SM or SN low zinc oils are DEATH to these engines.

As you might know the ZZDP is a extreme pressure additive to protect rubbing surfaces. Might be useful to the bearings on cold starts too...

I'm far from a oil expert, but this is all we hear about new oils.

Not true at all. My testing absolutely had NO hydrodynamic oil wedge at all. How could you even make that statement? You obviously do not understand how the testing was done, so why make a statement that questions your credibility? If that were true, I would have had no wear scars at all, and all the oils would have shown infinite capability, which of course is just plain silly.

All the oils were tested exactly the same, with absolutely NO hydrodynamic. And that was one of the main points that came out of the testing, that zinc/phos levels mean absolutely nothing. Look at the clear winner, the 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra. It totally kicked butt on all the high zinc/phos Race Oils, yet it had only 809 ppm zinc, and 812 ppm phos. It is a modern API certified oil that flat works. The oil companies know what they are doing, and in order to meet the latest API specs, the oils have to be quite impressive. Those modern oils have generally surpassed the commonly respected Racing Oils. And that was really the whole point of the test, to separate what is true, from what is not.

[540 RAT]

Very interesting and thanks for sharing.

Question - specifically what makes the Lucas, Valvoline et al Racing Oils not suitable for longer term street use?

jack vines

do a voa on lucas oils and see for yourself the lame additive package this oil has!! go to http://www.bobistheoilguy.com

The oil tester doesn't care what is inside any given oil, it simply tests how good it works. And I have already done my own independent Virgin Oil Analysis at ALS Tribology in Sparks, Nevada. Here it is:

Lucas 10W30 Racing Only synthetic (lab tested 2011)

Silicon = 18 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = <5 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Magnesium = 1 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 2929 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 9 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Total detergent/dispersant (anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge) = 2943 ppm
Zinc = 2642 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 3489 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 1764 ppm (anti-wear)
Total anti-wear = 7895 ppm***
Potassium = <5 ppm (anti-freeze inhibitor)
Sodium = 9 ppm (anti-freeze inhibitor)
Tin = 23 ppm (from bearings, bronze parts and piston coatings, but this is brand new oil……..)
TBN = 9.0 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9. And in use, this becomes depleted over time as mileage accumulates)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.5 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

***NOTE: The zinc and phosphorus anti-wear levels of all oil in this list, are elemental values, which are NOT the same as ZDDP values. Earlier oil industry testing found that above .14% or 1,400 ppm, ZDDP INCREASED long term wear, even though break-in wear was reduced. And it was also found that .20% or 2,000 ppm ZDDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.

But the correlation between elemental values and ZDDP values varies by motor oil manufacturer, and they do NOT publish their ZDDP values. That makes it difficult to impossible for the consumer to know how elemental and ZDDP values actually compare for any particular oil. However, these elemental values are so extremely high here, that this oil really is only suited for short life dedicated racing engines, as the name implies. Using zinc/phos levels this high in other engines could be cause for concern, since excessively high levels, used for more than just break-in, can “cause” engine damage rather than “prevent” it.

This by Brad Penn:
There is such a thing as too much ZDDP.
ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a detriment.
ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive performance.
Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will “tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear.
ZDDP effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection. Only so much is utilized.
We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP.