1992 7.4 Oil?

[Scooterwrench]

I use the pinch test to decide if an oil has a good film strength. I put a drop of oil on my finger and squeeze as hard as I can with my thumb then try to slide my thumb across my finger. If it grabs the test is a fail,if it slides then it's a pass. I know it's not a truly scientific method but works when you're in the store trying to determine if the oil you're looking at is something you may want to pour in your motor.
The scientific method to determine film strength is done with two hardened,polished steel plates,a press and a force gauge. One plate is held stationary and one plate slides. A ram with a roller is pressed down against the sliding plate with a measured amount of pressure and a force gauge measures to amount of effort it takes to slide the moving plate. A film of oil is applied to the plates and pressure is applied and the force is measured to slide the plate. Incrementally more pressure is applied and the force is measured. This is repeated until the pressure applied stalls the movement of the plate.
The point of stall is the film strength for that given oil.
My pinch test has determined that these ultra light oils that are being recommended by the manufacturers have really poor film strength. 10w-30 is about as light as I would recommend for a splash oiling system. 10w-40 for a pressure system.
There is so much varying information about synthetic oils that I don't know what to believe. Some say the base stock is plant based oils. Some say the base stock is crude that has been homogenized so all the oil molecules are the same size. I know highly refined crude oil and ZDDP has made my engines run for hundreds of thousands of miles.

 

[BuiltToWork]

I use the pinch test to decide if an oil has a good film strength. I put a drop of oil on my finger and squeeze as hard as I can with my thumb then try to slide my thumb across my finger. If it grabs the test is a fail,if it slides then it's a pass. I know it's not a truly scientific method but works when you're in the store trying to determine if the oil you're looking at is something you may want to pour in your motor.
The scientific method to determine film strength is done with two hardened,polished steel plates,a press and a force gauge. One plate is held stationary and one plate slides. A ram with a roller is pressed down against the sliding plate with a measured amount of pressure and a force gauge measures to amount of effort it takes to slide the moving plate. A film of oil is applied to the plates and pressure is applied and the force is measured to slide the plate. Incrementally more pressure is applied and the force is measured. This is repeated until the pressure applied stalls the movement of the plate.
The point of stall is the film strength for that given oil.
My pinch test has determined that these ultra light oils that are being recommended by the manufacturers have really poor film strength. 10w-30 is about as light as I would recommend for a splash oiling system. 10w-40 for a pressure system.
There is so much varying information about synthetic oils that I don't know what to believe. Some say the base stock is plant based oils. Some say the base stock is crude that has been homogenized so all the oil molecules are the same size. I know highly refined crude oil and ZDDP has made my engines run for hundreds of thousands of miles.

Project Farm on the You Tube has several oil reviews. That guy is very methodical.

 

[Scooterwrench]

Been a few years since I stumbled across it but I think there is a site out there titled Bob the oil guy. He had some pretty sound explanations of oil properties.

 

[Schurkey]

Been a few years since I stumbled across it but I think there is a site out there titled Bob the oil guy. He had some pretty sound explanations of oil properties.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/

There are forums for question/answer just like here.

 

[Scooterwrench]

Yup,that's the one. I got involved(actually started it)an oil war on the NAWCC about the use of an oil that contained molecules of a substance called Buckminster Fullerines. They take carbon molecules and subject them to intense heat and pressure which basically is the same method they use to create synthetic diamonds. These fullerines are a many faceted sphere and everyone was convinced that they would act like microscopic ball bearings and make old clocks run like new. They didn't! What they did do was to embed themselves into the bearing holes in the brass plates and grind the pivots down. I did a lot of studying to prove my case and Bob is the oil guy forum had several mentions of engines destroyed by oil that had had that crap added to it. So if you ever come across any of that oil run away,,,,,,,,,fast.

 

[udidwht]

Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. Here are some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the fiction behind these myths.

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) 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 compatibility 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.
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.

 

[Scooterwrench]

And

Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. Here are some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the fiction behind these myths.

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) 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 compatibility 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.
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.

Nah,by then they'll all be driving glorified golf carts(EV's)

 

[Caman96]

And

Nah,by then they'll all be driving glorified golf carts(EV's)

…having debates over “best batteries”.

 

[udidwht]

And

Nah,by then they'll all be driving glorified golf carts(EV's)

When cam-less engine technology hits the market EV will disappear.

 

[Scooterwrench]

When cam-less engine technology hits the market EV will disappear.

EPA wants carbon based fuels gone.

The Germans tried to perfect a rotary valve for their Messerschmitt's during WWII. They couldn't get it to work but later it became the Wankel rotary engine. Yeah,that didn't work so well either.