I use Valvoline Racing Oil which has zinc already in it, If you have an early model engine with flat tappets and such stick with Valvoline Racing (for the Zinc). Used to be that "Diesel" oil (Rotella Delo etc) supposedly had zinc and detergents,not sure if that is still the case. You might want to contact the oil manufacturer and get specifics.
I thought we where due again for the umpteenth time on Zink additive thread.... LoL This one is always sure to bring out the best in opinions..... Who wants to bet it turns into a Volvoline VR1 thread somewhere around the second page? FYI there is a search option up by the header......
Not many....the dumb ass politicians who know zero about automobiles passed a law against it! Just like if you ban the sale of magazines, they will all be eventually empty, and you will not be able to shoot your gun! Dumb ass politicians!
Those are the same dumbass politicians who wanted to ban a/c cars..."because the refrigerant pollutes when you turn it on"..... That's no b.s; It was actually proposed by one of Calif's "dumbdome" occupants ! 4TTRUK
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/ http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36352 1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard, whose own test data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing, has concluded that more zinc in motor oil can be damaging, more zinc does NOT provide today’s best wear protection, and that using zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology. 2. The GM Oil Report titled, “Oil Myths from GM Techlink”, concluded that high levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection. 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). figure 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 3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, “More than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil”, concluded that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer wear protection. 4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company: 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.
In a new article titled The Truth about Zinc by Jeff Huneycutt. " If you have a stock valvetrain and no other performance modifications, then an API- licensed oil is all you need" Higher lift cams with longer duration and greater spring pressures needs faster response from Zinc. Ago
Why pay for added zinc, when there are oils with it already in it and cost way less per oil change? At about $6.35 a qt. for Brad Penn, it way cheaper than $4.50 a qt. plus a $13 bottle of ZDDP.
Amsoil! (Called there Hot Rod Oil) It has the zinc that you are looking for and has preservatives in it for prolonged storage! It comes in 10W 30 and 20w 50 I am really happy with the product. Jay
Quaker State Defy (red container) is a cheap and easy to get alternative. It has a ZDDP additive as well as the high mileage seal conditioning additives.
Amsoil is an out standing product bar none! I've used it in every thing that takes oil or lube I use it in my banjo rear end 39 trans & motors for 30 years never an issue... It has every thing needed plus more anti-wear protection than most products out there!! Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
This is the stuff I use. It's about $12 but worth it for the protection. Amsoil has the right amounts of Zinc still.
The Jalopy Journal
