Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

Do aftermarket zinc additives actually work? To find out, I tested ZDDPlus zinc additive in 3 low zinc oils, and I also tested Edelbrock Zinc additive in 3 different low zinc oils. In each case, the recommended amount of additive was used. And in all 6 cases, these high zinc additives ruined the oils and made them WORSE than they were before the extra zinc was added, by SIGNIFICANTLY reducing their wear protection capabilities. These additives did the opposite of what was promised. That is not surprising, because most major Oil Companies say to never add anything to their oils, because doing that will ruin the oil by upsetting the carefully balanced additive package that their Chemical Engineers designed into them. And that is precisely what was seen when using these high zinc additives.

So, do yourself a favor and don't add any aftermarket zinc additives to your motor oil, because you will only make your oil's wear protection capability WORSE than it was to begin with, no matter what anyone tells you.

Here are the results of that testing:

* This combination ranked 113 out of 129 oils tested: “ZDDPlus” added to Royal Purple 20W50, API SN, synthetic = 63,595 psi
zinc = 2436 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2053 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
moly = 2 ppm (up 2 ppm)
The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 24% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.


* This combination ranked 122 out of 129 oils tested: “ZDDPlus” added to O’Reilly (house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional = 56,728 psi
zinc = 2711 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2172 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
moly = 2 ppm (up 2 ppm)
The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 38% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.


* This combination ranked 123 out of 129 oils tested: “ZDDPlus” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 56,243 psi
zinc = 2955 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2114 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
moly = 76 ppm (up 2 ppm)
The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 12% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.


* This combination ranked 125 out of 129 oils tested: “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 54,044 psi
zinc = 1515 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1334 ppm (up 517 ppm)
moly = 15 ppm (up 15 ppm)
The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a whopping 36% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.


* This combination ranked 127 out of 129 oils tested: “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional = 51,545 psi
zinc = 1565 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1277 ppm (up 517 ppm)
moly = 15 ppm (up 15 ppm)
The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a “breath taking” 44% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.


* This combination ranked 128 out of 129 oils tested: “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 50,202 psi
zinc = 1680 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1275 ppm (up 517 ppm)
moly = 89 ppm (up 15 ppm)
The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 22% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.


A motor oil's wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package (where the extreme pressure anti-wear components are added to the base oil) "as a whole", not just by the amount of zinc present. You will be best served by choosing a motor oil based on its wear protection capability, because zinc levels alone don't mean a thing. In fact, MANY WIPED FLAT TAPPET LOBES COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, INCLUDING DURING BREAK-IN, if people had not blindly believed that all high zinc oils provide all the wear protection they need. Because nothing could be further from the truth. Engineering testing has proven over and over again, that some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils only provide poor wear protection. And without wear protection test data, you have no way of knowing which ones are good and which ones are not.

The outdated thinking that high zinc levels are needed, is simply Folklore not based on the facts. No one can prove that more zinc provides more wear protection, because it is simply not true. Plenty of people will swear that you need high levels of zinc, but ask them to provide “proof” instead of mere opinion. They cannot do it because Physics and Chemistry proves otherwise.

Even though aftermarket zinc additives failed in every test, there were a couple of other aftermarket additives that did in fact improve motor oil wear protection capability. Prolong significantly improved every motor oil it was tested in, and Oil Extreme Concentrate significantly improved lower ranked oils.

Here we go again.

RAT what equipment testing do you have to test these oils and zinc levels? Did you ever setup a mule engine with a flat tappett cam and test oils and zinc levels. We are still looking for concrete answers on your testing. Come clean and lets see results. I beg you plenty in here are at there wits end with your testing. RAT lets be truthful.

LOLS lorax. Got to love it. We cant get any truthful answers out of this so called engineer.

I jumped two very large postings to see the one liner comments...

We use Maxima oil. Good people to work with.

Brand Racing Engines

No pic or video of said testing...
The only thing you've proved now Rat is that you need to copy & paste 3x instead of once, which was to often to begin with.

Is this it, YES OR NO ???

Has anyone ran Schaeffer synthetic ? I just read a test on a crate motor and it did very good

levisnteeshirt wrote:Has anyone ran Schaeffer synthetic ? I just read a test on a crate motor and it did very good

I've used it, as have others on this site. Never heard anything bad said about it, and I never had any issues with it. Its not the easiest oil to get for some people so its not the most popular or widely used oil out there.
Its pretty heavily laced with mTDC moly, which isn't all bad. Not to be confused with MOS2.
Its not a lot unlike Brad Penn's Penn 1 multi wt, in that it is a paraffin based conventional blended with a group III+ base stock(which is now considered a synthetic by most oil bottlers)

lorax wrote:

levisnteeshirt wrote:Has anyone ran Schaeffer synthetic ? I just read a test on a crate motor and it did very good

I've used it, as have others on this site. Never heard anything bad said about it, and I never had any issues with it. Its not the easiest oil to get for some people so its not the most popular or widely used oil out there.
Its pretty heavily laced with mTDC moly, which isn't all bad. Not to be confused with MOS2.
Its not a lot unlike Brad Penn's Penn 1 multi wt, in that it is a paraffin based conventional blended with a group III+ base stock(which is now considered a synthetic by most oil bottlers)

I've never run Schaeffer motor oil but I have been using their industrial lubricants for gear boxes etc.etc. for years and they are top quality products.
No reason to think the motor oil would be any different.

CamKing wrote:

clevo wrote:

CamKing wrote: NASCAR hasn't ran cast iron flat tappet cams and iron tappets for over 20 years.
The Powdered metal cams and DLC coated tool steel lifters have little in common with what most racers know as a flat tappet cam.

Camking you are right on the money, we are running a cast iron cam that has been plasma nitridied and Ferrea tool steel coolface lifters.
Pressures on the nose are 425lbs ,what oil have you found to be the best running these pressures

We run 420# on the nose, no nitriding, and our Iron EDM'd lifters. We use Brad Penn Break-in oil, then Brad Penn non-synthetic.

Is this the oil you are suggesting for flat tappets?

http://www.amazon.com/Brad-Penn-009-711 ... =brad+penn

That is the stuff my local oil company that supports racing is selling. I ran it in my roller motor this past year and seemed ok. But it says partial synthetic and i am building a flat tappet this year for IMCA

racinnut15xm wrote:
Is this the oil you are suggesting for flat tappets?

http://www.amazon.com/Brad-Penn-009-711 ... =brad+penn

That is the stuff my local oil company that supports racing is selling. I ran it in my roller motor this past year and seemed ok. But it says partial synthetic and i am building a flat tappet this year for IMCA

This isn't.
Not suggesting this is what Mike is referring to, but not all Brad Penn is a blend.
http://www.amazon.com/BPEN-50WT-12-Brad ... B004WKH11K

I have plenty of customers that run the partial synthetic, but I recommend the non-synthetic.
Here's the SAE40 version of it. http://penngrade1.com/Products/High-Per ... AE-40.aspx

540 RAT,
It would have been nice if you had done testing on some breakin oils, you got me thinking how much wear protection the Gibbs BR-30 has