When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
People on Internet discussions argue endlessly over the merits or lack thereof, of these oil Groups, to try and determine which oil type is best to use. But, with my Engineering tests, you can bypass all that debate, and go directly to the results of how oils you find on Auto Parts Store shelves, actually perform when put to the test. My testing is a dynamic friction test under load, similar to how an engine dyno test is a dynamic HP/Torque test under load. Both tests show how their subjects truly perform in the real world, no matter what Brand names are involved, no matter what outrageous claims may have been made, and no matter what their spec sheets say.
The resulting breakthrough data used in the Wear Protection Ranking List is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. The data is the result of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the testing. I am only the messenger. The Science is what tells us how these oils perform. And no one can argue with Physics and Chemistry.
In addition to this, a NASCAR team sent me three high zinc synthetic Mobil 1 Racing Oils for testing, because they were having wear problems when using these oils (more on that below). Lab Report Data from testing performed on these oils by Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada, showed that on average, these oils contained 1774 ppm zinc, 1658 ppm phosphorus, and 1444 ppm moly. And because these were all high zinc oils, most folks would “assume” that they’d provide sufficient wear protection. However, the results of my testing showed that these oils only provided POOR WEAR PROTECTION CAPABILITY. So, they were NOT a good choice for their racing application, which confirmed why they had wear problems. This is yet another perfect example of what I’ve been saying about high zinc levels being NO GUARENTEE of adequate wear protection. And this example clearly showed once again that my test data EXACTLY MATCHED what this race team had experienced on the track
Those who are familiar with my test data, know that my test results came up with the exact same results stated by all four of those independent sources. So, this is an example where motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” using oil testing equipment, engine dyno testing, Motor Oil Industry testing, and proper motor oil research using only the facts, from a total of five (including my own) independent sources, all converged to agree and come to the same exact conclusion. Back-up validation proof, doesn’t get any better than this.
SECTION 4 – COMPONENT QUANTITY LAB TEST RESULTS
.
All the component quantity Lab test results shown below, were taken from brand new, thoroughly shaken bottles of oil. And all tests were performed at ALS Tribology, in Sparks, Nevada. Having all the oils tested by the same Lab, makes this the most consistent and reliable information you will ever find, for this many oil to oil comparisons.
Most motor oils contain more zinc than phosphorus, but that is not always the case. A good percentage of motor oils are formulated to contain more phosphorus than zinc. It just depends on what the Chemical Engineers decided they needed for any particular oil. So, you will find some oils below that show more phosphorus than zinc. And those values are correct, they are NOT typos.
.
If you’ve read Section 1 – Motor Oil “Wear Protection” Ranking List, of this Blog, you know that the amount of zinc/phos, does NOT determine an oil’s wear protection capability. Because it is physically impossible for more zinc/phos to provide more wear protection. Zinc/phos does NOT work that way. More zinc/phos simply takes longer to become depleted, since there was more to begin with. It is much like the way more gas in your tank will take longer to run out, but more gas in your tank will NOT make more power.
But, many people incorrectly believe you need high levels of zinc/phos for adequate wear protection in High Performance engines, simply because they have always been told that, read that or heard that. Amazingly, they’ve blindly accepted that notion with NO PROOF what so ever. And unfortunately for them, that line of thinking is nothing more than an old wives’ tale MYTH that took on a life of its own, because it kept being repeated over and over for years and years. But, repeating wrong folklore over and over, does NOT make it magically become true.
Engineering tests have BUSTED that old high zinc/phos myth. And that test data has PROVEN beyond any doubt, that the idea of all high zinc/phos oils providing adequate wear protection, is simply NOT TRUE. The fact is, some high zinc/phos oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc/phos oils provide poor wear protection. And you simply CANNOT tell from an oil’s Lab print out, which one is which, just by looking at the amount of zinc/phos.
However, some people just can’t accept that they have been off-track all these years about zinc/phos, and choose to ignore the Engineering test data FACTS. Sadly, they insist on clinging to their old false beliefs about needing high levels of zinc/phos, and in so doing, they are putting their engine, and by extension, the engines of others, at risk for no good reason.
Also, some high zinc/phos believers even get emotional and nasty about all this. But, they can never back-up anything they say with actual facts. And no amount of hostility or verbal attacks, will change the Engineering FACTS. Engineering does NOT work that way. My Engineering testing does not involve pre-conceived notions or emotion. It is all performed Professionally, and I report the results just as they are determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved, good or bad. In other words, I back-up everything I say with hard FACTUAL test data.
This is the 21st Century, and we now have correct Engineering test data FACTS available, so that we can finally make informed decisions about motor oil selection, that was not available before. Technology marches on. People can embrace it, and make use of it to their advantage, or they can be left behind to continue making poor motor oil choices.
In fact, incorrect choices of poor performing high zinc/phos motor oils, is the primary reason why flat tappet wiped lobes are still a problem, whether during break-in or after. But, choosing a high performing motor oil from my Motor Oil Wear Protection “Ranking List”, which is based on oil film strength load carrying capability, rather than on the amount of zinc/phos, can make wiped lobes and complicated break-in procedures a thing of the past.
.
In addition to that, not only are high levels of zinc/phos no guarantee of providing sufficient wear protection, but too much zinc/phos can actually DAMAGE your engine. Oil industry testing has found that motor oils with more than 1,400 ppm ZDDP, INCREASED long-term wear. And it was also found that motor oils with more than 2,000 ppm ZDDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling. The ZDDP value is the average of the zinc and phosphorus values, rounded to the next lowest 100 ppm increment.
.
Okay, I admit it. I'm ADD and only read half of your post and skimmed the rest. I get that an oil could effect wear, especially in racing conditions. But can you give a simple opinion as to whether the OPs sitiuation could really be the result of the oil he used?
Yes I noticed all the comments. I also noticed they had no data or test to provide to back up the smart comments. You notice that?
FYI: People who had never tested by sailing to far laughed at others when they said the world was not flat but round. The someone tested it. Those who did not but had said it was flat, also had no data or test to back up the comments either.
Okay, I admit it. I'm ADD and only read half of your post and skimmed the rest. I get that an oil could effect wear, especially in racing conditions. But can you give a simple opinion as to whether the OPs sitiuation could really be the result of the oil he used?
Ok Ill Bite.
Page #4, post #50 I said "Not commenting about the performance at all."
I work with ADD kids. Nice try tho using that to cop out on missing that I said I was commenting about the performance loss when the discussion was about oil and wear and types vs Penzoil.
The OP's complaint about both loss of engine power and erratic transmission shifting sounds to me like the problem is associated with the VVT-i system...and more specifically the oil control valve (OCV) strainer/filter screen. This filter/strainer screen is very fine and can easily become partially blocked or clogged, which can cause the exact issues the OP describes without always throwing a CEL code. Also, the OCV strainer/filter screen can become air-locked (much like can happen in a water jacket in an engine block), which is an air bubble that deprives the OCV of the oil (and oil pressure) it needs to properly operate the variable valve timing mechanism of the camshaft it controls. Without proper operation of one of the OCVs the camshaft timing does not advance as it should when throttle is applied, which in-turn confuses the ECU for engine management as well as transmission shift parameters.
The problem may not have been caused directly by the engine oil that was installed at the last engine oil and oil filter change, but just performing an oil change could trigger such an event.
I will say that if in any way in the world the oil did cause the problem this post above would be "my" best guess too. Even before I read this post. By my wildness theory I was thinking that the Pennzoil may have changed the VVT-i system function. Or a clogged (OCV) strainer/filter screen Or... was it possibly the wrong grade/weight oil?
My next thought would be who changed it? Did they check or remove anything else? Oil change places check filters, take things apart the check. Could something have been not put back right? Air leak? MAF?
The next possibility that someone else already mentioned, is that its all in His Head. That's my 2cents.
Yes I noticed all the comments. I also noticed they had no data or test to provide to back up the smart comments. You notice that?
FYI: People who had never tested by sailing to far laughed at others when they said the world was not flat but round. The someone tested it. Those who did not but had said it was flat, also had no data or test to back up the comments either.
I think you didn't read this post. Honestly it makes more sense than your diatribe....
"He dismisses HTHS as "only demonstrating that it holds it's viscosity, and shows nothing on my machine", which is a circular logic.
My machine is th be all and end all, that (widely accepted) parameter shows nothing on my machine, so industry is wrong.
Problem is that the first basis for lubrication is to keep the parts separated by a thick film of oil, and the way that is done is geometry, speed, and viscosity.
When viscosity isn't enough to keep parts separated, mixed and boundary lubrication ensues, which is controlled by additives largely...this is the "film strength" that he's talking about, not hydrodynamic oil film, but the boundary layer stuff.
It's what protects when there's essentially no oil left...Hydrodynamic used to be described as "zero wear" (no contact whatsoever), boundary, there is material loss which is slowed by additives.
Industry has a lot of acceptance tests, which don't include this type of test...given the costs of the tests that they DO do, if they could get meaningful results, with such a test they'd be all over it...the major oil labs use similar, it's true, but only for screening those oils that will go to the engine test bench.
Essentially Rat is "pre-screening" oils that have already passed the pre-screening and gone on to formulation and testing.
I DO cede (back to your original point) that if you have a cooling system failure, the filter explodes, or your sump plug drops out on the highway, the oils that do well in Rat's tests may give you an extra couple hundred yards 'til the point that everything squeaks together permanently (*).
And that would only be the rings/walls, and cams/lifters, which are all ferrous metals. His test has no representation on what happens between Al alloy (piston) and liners (iron), nor crank and babbit (bearings)."
I think you didn't read this post. Honestly it makes more sense than your diatribe....
"He dismisses HTHS as "only demonstrating that it holds it's viscosity, and shows nothing on my machine", which is a circular logic.
My machine is th be all and end all, that (widely accepted) parameter shows nothing on my machine, so industry is wrong.
Problem is that the first basis for lubrication is to keep the parts separated by a thick film of oil, and the way that is done is geometry, speed, and viscosity.
When viscosity isn't enough to keep parts separated, mixed and boundary lubrication ensues, which is controlled by additives largely...this is the "film strength" that he's talking about, not hydrodynamic oil film, but the boundary layer stuff.
It's what protects when there's essentially no oil left...Hydrodynamic used to be described as "zero wear" (no contact whatsoever), boundary, there is material loss which is slowed by additives.
Industry has a lot of acceptance tests, which don't include this type of test...given the costs of the tests that they DO do, if they could get meaningful results, with such a test they'd be all over it...the major oil labs use similar, it's true, but only for screening those oils that will go to the engine test bench.
Essentially Rat is "pre-screening" oils that have already passed the pre-screening and gone on to formulation and testing.
I DO cede (back to your original point) that if you have a cooling system failure, the filter explodes, or your sump plug drops out on the highway, the oils that do well in Rat's tests may give you an extra couple hundred yards 'til the point that everything squeaks together permanently (*).
And that would only be the rings/walls, and cams/lifters, which are all ferrous metals. His test has no representation on what happens between Al alloy (piston) and liners (iron), nor crank and babbit (bearings)."
I read it all, many times. Did you read why and the reason he choose, regardless if you agree or not? But don't disregard that no reasoning was given at all.
Don't want to take the thread way off track going around and around about this. For in as much as you and some disagree, which is normal with things like this, there are also many that value the info and find it interesting, NOT dismissing or overlooking the value of the theory and info/data given. That's where you draw your own conclusions.
Seeing your sig, im guessing oils are a hot spot for you. You obviously know there's much debate about rats testing both yea, and nay. Ill address your "He dismisses HTHS, and counter that you did not read the valid reason he gave: WEAR?
But, HTHS (High-Temperature/High-Shear) test data only provides information on how capable various motor oils are at maintaining their viscosity under high heat and high stress conditions. But, that HTHS viscosity data DOES NOT provide any information at all about an oil’s wear protection capability. Because a motor oil’s viscosity DOES NOT determine its wear protection capability. A lot of people are completely mistaken when they believe viscosity determines an oil’s wear protection capability. On some Forums, people discuss HTHS values and how they indicate an oil’s wear protection capability. But, that whole line of thinking is completely FALSE
The testing he does is his rank of motor oils only by their anti-wear test results, saying its his ranking result is that some oils (ranked) will protect engines from wear better than other oils by his ranking. Reading into it way too much just creates smoke and mirrors. Let alone the fact that all you conclude is that a engine that blows would last longer, ignoring that there is no value for a engine that is not blown.
There is some value in it, beyond one disagreeing with his theory.
Page #4, post #50 I said "Not commenting about the performance at all."
I work with ADD kids. Nice try tho using that to cop out on missing that I said I was commenting about the performance loss when the discussion was about oil and wear and types vs Penzoil.
Simple opinion already given : "Not commenting"
wow, thanks for the incredibly polite reply. I'm truly sorry I did not see your other post. I'm really confused though on this statement of yours..... "Nice try tho using that to cop out on missing that I said I was commenting about the performance loss when the discussion was about oil and wear and types vs Pennzoil." Just to be sure my ADD was not kicking my butt again, I went back and read post number 1. Turns out I do remember it correctly. The discussion actually is about performance loss, not wear.
wow, thanks for the incredibly polite reply. I'm truly sorry I did not see your other post. I'm really confused though on this statement of yours..... "Nice try tho using that to cop out on missing that I said I was commenting about the performance loss when the discussion was about oil and wear and types vs Pennzoil." Just to be sure my ADD was not kicking my butt again, I went back and read post number 1. Turns out I do remember it correctly. The discussion actually is about performance loss, not wear.
But tell me when I posted on #50, that post #46, 47, 48, and 49 were about performance loss and not oils, which is what I posted about? But yet you were moderating me?
Time to move on from there, I answered all your questions. Did I not?
I read it all, many times. Did you read why and the reason he choose, regardless if you agree or not? But don't disregard that no reasoning was given at all.
Don't want to take the thread way off track going around and around about this. For in as much as you and some disagree, which is normal with things like this, there are also many that value the info and find it interesting, NOT dismissing or overlooking the value of the theory and info/data given. That's where you draw your own conclusions.
Seeing your sig, im guessing oils are a hot spot for you. You obviously know there's much debate about rats testing both yea, and nay. Ill address your "He dismisses HTHS, and counter that you did not read the valid reason he gave: WEAR?
But, HTHS (High-Temperature/High-Shear) test data only provides information on how capable various motor oils are at maintaining their viscosity under high heat and high stress conditions. But, that HTHS viscosity data DOES NOT provide any information at all about an oil’s wear protection capability. Because a motor oil’s viscosity DOES NOT determine its wear protection capability. A lot of people are completely mistaken when they believe viscosity determines an oil’s wear protection capability. On some Forums, people discuss HTHS values and how they indicate an oil’s wear protection capability. But, that whole line of thinking is completely FALSE
The testing he does is his rank of motor oils only by their anti-wear test results, saying its his ranking result is that some oils (ranked) will protect engines from wear better than other oils by his ranking. Reading into it way too much just creates smoke and mirrors. Let alone the fact that all you conclude is that a engine that blows would last longer, ignoring that there is no value for a engine that is not blown.
There is some value in it, beyond one disagreeing with his theory.
How many tear downs has Rat done? There is more to HTHS than just high temp high stress situations. Then you contradict yourself when you say that viscosity doesn't determine wear protection. You do understand that HTHS and viscosity are directly related and that in most cases as the HTHS increases so does viscosity. A 5w40 oil in most cases will have a higher HTHS than a 5w30 oil.
I have had numerous conversations with Dave at Red Line lubricants and their HTHS always tend to run on the higher side and he always recommends running their oils one grade down because of their HTHS. If you want to keep thinking that viscosity doesn't correlate to wear(or Rat for that matter)and makes you sleep better at night than be so.
How many tear downs has Rat done? There is more to HTHS than just high temp high stress situations. Then you contradict yourself when you say that viscosity doesn't determine wear protection. You do understand that HTHS and viscosity are directly related and that in most cases as the HTHS increases so does viscosity. A 5w40 oil in most cases will have a higher HTHS than a 5w30 oil.
I have had numerous conversations with Dave at Red Line lubricants and their HTHS always tend to run on the higher side and he always recommends running their oils one grade down because of their HTHS. If you want to keep thinking that viscosity doesn't correlate to wear(or Rat for that matter)and makes you sleep better at night than be so.
Seriously I'm done. Im pretty sure you know the importance of HTHS to a extent, and that there is as much debate about what we are discussing and rats test. Have the 10Kth one is useless.
Please tell me where I. As you say - (you contradict yourself). Lets be clear "I" never said this. rat may have but not I. You are confused, or incorrect.
Again Ill say. Rats test is as useful as your own thoughts, so have at it. Likely, like me you have seen this link. So please spare me just mentioning all the against comments, as there are just as many for comments "with validation" (vs as) against, and lets put this to rest. If I may quote - "so I can sleep better at night".
And.......... With all due respect, if you don't mind please......
May I ask you why your best oil choice you stated is one that adds DYE (Red & Blue) for Marketing Gimmicks, Royal Purple. Is so great that they add dye to the Oil? Does that help HTHS? LOL!
08-22-17, 05:43 AM
