Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This I didn't know untill yesterday Oil additive

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Thanks Dave and Chris! I would hate very much to be wrong and risk needless damage to my engine. You're saying engine failure is happening now that didn't happen before and this co-insides with lower ZDDP levels. Since there isn't any published testing and we rely on history (i.e. experience), how wrong can we be for going the extra yard of protection? I know roller cams were made not because of the lack of ZDDP, but because they can withstand radical profiles. I know flat tappet cams couldn't endure the performance profiles of the roller cams probably with or without ZDDP. Roller cams are hardened just to withstand their inherent operation characteristics not to mention stiffer valve springs. What in today's oil protects these cams? Interesting that ZDDP levels in the 1950's weren't as high as the 70s and 80s.
    Last edited by Deanj; December 2nd, 2016, 02:42 PM. Reason: Upon further review

    Comment


    • #32
      Roller cams are used in all modern engines because of the lack of zinc in the oil. The pressure between the lifter and cam is the same, but the rolling action doesn't require that type of lubricant.

      Comment


      • #33
        Dean, this isn't about 'whose brand of oil is best'...

        True, but if you read further on this "lawsuit", it is people who bought the cheapest thing on the shelf and didn't read the labels. The "Dollar" oil specifically says not to use on modern engines. People saw that it only cost a dollar, didn't read the label, and poured it into their new Honda. It destroyed the engine.

        Bad on the Dollar store for putting it right next to the name-brand oil that it also carries (at the name brand price), but the people got what they paid for. They just failed to read.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Yadkin View Post
          Roller cams are used in all modern engines because of the lack of zinc in the oil. The pressure between the lifter and cam is the same, but the rolling action doesn't require that type of lubricant.
          I totally agree and I'll go one further...

          Today's engines are much smaller! I was dumbfounded to learn my cousin's Caddy had a SIX-cylinder engine. 4.6L Romeo engines are all under 300 cubic inches and they all had roller cams. They went into T-bird, Mustang, Lincoln, Mercury and a host of other applications after the 5.0 was terminated. I worked there. The valves were small (by comparison) and the springs were 'single', even in the 4-valve Cobra and Mark engines.

          Roller cams use either roller lifters or roller followers (for overhead cam). Both use needle bearings that need no ZDDP. A single roller follower for a 2000 4.6L engine costs $15/ea. at rock auto. There are 32 in a 4-valve engine totaling $480.

          Did I say this was an expensive move for the auto industry? You betcha! We assembled 1,000 engines per day. You figure the math for roller followers and injectors. BTW, injectors came into the plant on pallets with a Guard who sealed the crib shut before he left. Ford used to WELD the radio crib shut every weekend the plant was down. Come Monday morning, the cutting torch was brought out to open the crib. - Dave
          My latest project:
          CLICK HERE to see my custom hydraulic roller 390 FE build.

          "We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
          --Lee Iacocca

          Comment


          • #35
            Okay, I'm with your arguments, but weren't roller cams introduced before the big zinc-phosphorus reduction? Their radical profiles are a big reason why today's engines have more output. And weren't the levels of these elements in engine oils about the same in the 1950's? Modern engines last longer from computerized control, materials, and low lifetime RPMs. My 1971 Z28 was dead at 60K miles from a 4.10 rear end (and maybe a few too many gear wined outs). No amount of ZDDP would have saved it-and it had plenty in the day.

            The government has mandated CAFE numbers. While there has been a lot of good to come out of this random BS from non-car guys, It's not for me. I will not buy a modern car, especially an upscale car, with a pee-pee engine, no matter what the output. V-8s with high HP and Torque are qualities of upscale cars-in my opinion. That's why I own late model rear drive Challenger and Charger RT's. Throw in a set of winter tires for each of these cars, also.

            Comment


            • #36
              Modern engines have higher output mainly because of variable valve timing. They can "de-tune" themselves for super smooth idle then instantly transform to a beast when RPMs are increased. Your late model Chysler hemi is still a single cam pushrod motor but VVT allows it to perform much better than the hemi engines of the past.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Deanj View Post
                Okay, I'm with your arguments, but weren't roller cams introduced before the big zinc-phosphorus reduction?..
                Do you know how one change can affect more changes? This is 'classic' that.

                We come from an era of huge engines with massive hp, right? None of them had roller cams from the factory. Factory engines were designed for all-weather daily driver service and none of the cams were wild. Wild (race) and OEM cams used flat tappets. In the 1970's engines ran much leaner and hotter for better fuel efficiency. The OEMs capped-off the idle screws so they could not be adjusted. Consequently, engines would continue running from detonation after the key was out.

                In the 1980's gasohol and catalytic converters was the big change. If leaded gas got into your fuel it melted the converter substrate and eventually the exhaust would plug. Then, ZDDP in existing oil was found to harm the substrate as the engine aged and started burning oil. Again, no roller cams.

                Engine Engineers found, when ZDDP was removed from the oil, engines were failing far too soon, especially in the cam area where the most metal-to-metal pressure is applied. This is the point at which roller cams were widely used in engine production, to protect driveline warranties.

                Cam grinds aren't any more radical today than in the old days. New engines start and idle perfectly (with no 'lope') and without human intervention because EFI controls the fuel while your foot controls the air. Vacuum levels are the same too.

                Originally posted by Deanj View Post
                ...Their radical profiles are a big reason why today's engines have more output. And weren't the levels of these elements in engine oils about the same in the 1950's? Modern engines last longer from computerized control, materials, and low lifetime RPMs. My 1971 Z28 was dead at 60K miles from a 4.10 rear end (and maybe a few too many gear wined outs). No amount of ZDDP would have saved it-and it had plenty in the day...
                Remember Jeep 4.0L CARBURIZED engines? They were gas guzzling dogs. When that same engine got EFI, it woke right up and new-found ponies jumped into action using less of the same fuel. It's a six cylinder with a mild factory cam, sometimes used for off-road.

                Modern engines are run with input and output data as a controlled system. They run hotter with higher radiator pressure and they use aluminum to transfer heat better. They also use moly rings with hypereutectic alloy pistons (better materials). EFI atomizes high pressure fuel to better control the air-to-fuel for a near perfect 14.7:1 ratio in ALL altitudes. Combine all this with gasohol and you get spark plugs and exhaust systems that last MUCH longer with the best fuel efficiency possible.

                Your 1971 was built to run leaded gas, it had cast iron rings, valves that loaded with lead deposits and a carburetor that BLINDLY dribbled low pressure fuel into the air horns. That's a classic engine that hogs gas. ZDDP was for the cam, not the pistons, bearings or rings. - Dave
                My latest project:
                CLICK HERE to see my custom hydraulic roller 390 FE build.

                "We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
                --Lee Iacocca

                Comment


                • #38
                  Good explanation. I suppose the rest is up to me. You know the only thing that lasted on the Z28 was the cam.

                  One story regarding cars and cams from the mid 70s and early 80s: I bought a new 1980 4 speed L48 Corvette. It was a slow car much to my chagrin. Sometime in the late 80s I replaced the old pelletized cat with a honeycomb type. Now at least the car ran in 4th gear at 35mph. Then, a miracle occurred at 25K miles in 1995. The camshaft wiped the number one lobe. Actually, the entire cam and lifters were creviced in wear. I think this was part of the GM 305/350 bad cam shaft era. I had done my homework on camshafts and installed a mild performance Erson with a 208/208 duration and higher lift that worked well with a 3.07 rear axle. Presto: Real decent performance and improved gas mileage without sacrificing emissions (I think). You know, cams make a lot of scary noise when breaking in. It's the one car I regretted selling, but then I would never bought the 1960 T-Bird.

                  You said it. One change leads to another.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Deanj View Post
                    I had done my homework on camshafts and installed a mild performance Erson with a 208/208 duration and higher lift that worked well with a 3.07 rear axle. Presto: Real decent performance and improved gas mileage without sacrificing emissions (I think). You know, cams make a lot of scary noise when breaking in.

                    You said it. One change leads to another.
                    Similar story here, I took the stock cam out of my '70 429 Ford motor and replaced it with the Isky 270 (as mentioned earlier).
                    On a road trip the gas mileage in my F100 jumped from 14mpg at best to 16mpg - and even 17mpg if I keep my foot out of it. (Rare!).
                    I guess the Isky cam is very efficient at open road cruising speeds, not so much driving around town...
                    Last edited by simplyconnected; December 4th, 2016, 10:04 PM. Reason: just to fix the quote bracket for proper appearance.
                    A Thunderbirder from the Land of the Long White Cloud.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Deanj View Post
                      ...Then, a miracle occurred at 25K miles in 1995. The camshaft wiped the number one lobe. Actually, the entire cam and lifters were creviced in wear...

                      ...You know, cams make a lot of scary noise when breaking in...
                      You raise another good point. If cam heat treat isn't right it will fail. At Ford, we induction harden each individual lobe AS it is being quenched. So, it's unusual that the entire cam goes bad. It can happen though.

                      Older hydraulic lifters are not supposed to show any wear until well into advanced age, like 100,000 miles. This applies to all cams, mild or wild.

                      Newer hydraulic roller lifters (and lash adjusters in overhead cam heads) show even less. NO hydraulic lifter should be noisy, especially when new.

                      Sheet metal valve covers don't muffle valve train noise very well but cast aluminum covers do. Noise comes mostly from rocker arms. - Dave
                      My latest project:
                      CLICK HERE to see my custom hydraulic roller 390 FE build.

                      "We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
                      --Lee Iacocca

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        That brings up another question regarding engine noise. I don't have a problem, but my 352 chugging along reminds me somewhat of the boats African Queen or Orca. Like driving in one of those Ford vans that take you from the airport to your hotel. The exhaust sounds great and the engine runs great. There's no abnormal lifter or rocker noises. Everything checks out as it was rebuilt at 72K, and it's now at 81K. Back in the day, I just don't recall my brothers 1964 390 sounding so...dated. There's definitely that distinctive difference between riding in a 1958 Ford vs a 1958 Chevy. Could it be noise from the draft tube? Just recently another "funny thing" happened when I put 10W-30 synthetic in for the last oil change. The engine got quieter instead of louder. I know this is subjective stuff, but it is it me or Memorex?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          One of my multiple winter projects with the Bird is getting rid of the boat anchor intake manifold. It's got plugged journals and weighs in about 90 pds.

                          On will go a brand spanking new Edelbrock Performer with the added benefit of losing the draft tube and adding a PCV. AND a new carb replacing my 465 CFM Holley POS the PO had installed. Sticky floats, under powered, I'm looking forward to some additional bottom end grunt next year.

                          I don't know about you guys but the constant chugging of that draft tube in traffic on a hot summer day is not my idea of a cruise. More a 2 stroke outboard!
                          Scott
                          South Delta, BC, Canada
                          1960 White T-Bird, PS, PB that's it
                          Red Leather Interior!
                          www.squarebirds.org/users/sidewalkman
                          Thunderbird Registry #61266
                          http://www.squarebirds.org/picture_g...ibrary/trl.htm

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            You raise a couple insights...
                            Do you know that your exhaust crossover will be blocked, rendering your heat riser valve useless? If you're ok with that simply wire the heat riser open or replace it with a 'dummy' spacer.

                            As a matter of course, I always block the crossover. Your engine will take a little longer to heat but it's not a big thing... just as long as you are aware.

                            PCV is wonderful in an engine that is not tired and worn out. There comes a point when rings get too sloppy and blowby volumes become too much for PCV to handle. Draft tubes may belch smoke but they always work.

                            In a nut shell, I would do both of your improvements on an overhauled engine as part of the assembly. - Dave
                            My latest project:
                            CLICK HERE to see my custom hydraulic roller 390 FE build.

                            "We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
                            --Lee Iacocca

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by sidewalkman View Post
                              One of my multiple winter projects with the Bird is getting rid of the boat anchor intake manifold. It's got plugged journals and weighs in about 90 pds.

                              On will go a brand spanking new Edelbrock Performer with the added benefit of losing the draft tube and adding a PCV. AND a new carb replacing my 465 CFM Holley POS the PO had installed. Sticky floats, under powered, I'm looking forward to some additional bottom end grunt next year.

                              I don't know about you guys but the constant chugging of that draft tube in traffic on a hot summer day is not my idea of a cruise. More a 2 stroke outboard!
                              FAST makes a multiport EFI for the FE.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                In the 4 & 6 cyl MG/Austin/Triumph engines I work on which run at much higher rev's than the FE's but also have flat tappets I follow the same theory as this fellow who has proved his info with "real world" mileage.

                                http://mgaguru.com/mgtech/engine/of104a.htm

                                Run the ZDDP at break-in and possibly until the first oil change then change regularly with a good oil (with or without ZDDP) after that. At his writing of the article he had 75K on his engine. He has since retired and is crisscrossing the country working on folks cars just for fun. Probably double that mileage by now and he pulls a small trailer everywhere he goes so the little 4 cyl is always under load.



                                As for my first Harley it was a 1975 90cc enduro.............no I'm not kidding (wish I still had it).


                                Eric

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X