• 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.

Z D D P

The stuff I indicated above comes in 15W-50, amongst other weights. No mention of 20W-50 for it on their website?
Its my understanding the closer the numbers are the better the oil resistance is to viscosity loss, due to polymer breakdown.
Example 10w-40 is 10wt that has added polymers to make it 40wt protection when at running temp. 20w-40 startout with 20w then adds half the polymers to get to the 40wt protection level. 40wt well its just 40wt.
Multi viscosity oils were created for daily drivers. Turned on and of multiple times a day, in the dead winter or the heat of summer. With little to no warmup time.
Most of our cars are not that, our cars start a couple times a week I imagine they get a good warmup then driven around when shutdown they either fire back up before the oil thickens are get parked in the garage until next weekend.
These cars are a perfect case for straight wt oil SAE30 or 40wt. Just make sure its not non- detergent.
 
IF you read the article, you will find he provided some details of his procedures.
That he does not provide all details is your pain and simply invalidates thing without any further process, but you should understand a good cook does not put his recipe online.
The details the writer provides regarding getting to these film strength numbers is simple basics between Force and Area, there is nothing else to know about that.
Yes there are tons of variables that cannot be calculated in due to the unknown, but his testing clearly shows difference between types of oils in regards to film strength which was tested under controlled cirumstances with repetitive results.
The higher the number, the higher the wear protection. There is nothing else to know about that oil specification.


If you are aware, you would also know that these standards do not provide the numbers the writer has provided and cannot be used to run a comparison between the standards and his findings.
So for what reason one would ask for API or ASTM in this case? It will not result in apple-to-apple comparison by any means. His consistent testing does make this right comparison.
As he stated, which i fully agree with, you can make your own decision about his testing and in what to believe or continue to fall for the skilled marketing performance of lubricant manufacturers.
Nobody states what oil brand/type you need to use, you are free to do so.

I find this testing more reliable than a guy saying "i used this oil and additive for 15 years and never had a problem" type of comment.
It's all good he shares his experience, and someone with a very similar build can follow and be just as happy as him.
But that guy that does run a much higher valve spring pressure or much tighter bearing clearances will destroy his engine during break-in and wonders why, and that is because he followed someone's experience based on an opinion based on no actual facts.
You claim the facts of this guy his research (which are only partially provided for obvious reasons) but are doing the same type of "i have been using this or that and worked for me over the last 15 years" behavior with the chance of providing a completely wrong lubricant recommendation to a guy who is oblivious of the engine difference between yours and his.
Does the person's experiences and reported numbers originate where? I believe, that, to accurately report the values, to what nationally recognized standards or procedures are/were used? If not ASTM OR API criteria, what standards were used? Maybe the person used "Consumer's Reports" or something similar but hopefully not the universal comparison standard of: My next door neighbor's cousin's sister's husband's best buddy, etc which seems to bear credence to many debates and discussions. In short, I'll go my way......do what you wish....
BOB RENTON
 
Does the person's experiences and reported numbers originate where? I believe, that, to accurately report the values, to what nationally recognized standards or procedures are/were used? If not ASTM OR API criteria, what standards were used? Maybe the person used "Consumer's Reports" or something similar but hopefully not the universal comparison standard of: My next door neighbor's cousin's sister's husband's best buddy, etc which seems to bear credence to many debates and discussions. In short, I'll go my way......do what you wish....
BOB RENTON
Mr Renton, are you continuing on just to argue? Or to again show your "amazing" intellectual prowess?
 
Does the person's experiences and reported numbers originate where? I believe, that, to accurately report the values, to what nationally recognized standards or procedures are/were used? If not ASTM OR API criteria, what standards were used? Maybe the person used "Consumer's Reports" or something similar but hopefully not the universal comparison standard of: My next door neighbor's cousin's sister's husband's best buddy, etc which seems to bear credence to many debates and discussions.
Parts of your important questions are in the article, read it and find your answers

Again, your replies only question others on any fundamentals you can find, do not add any use full information nor provide any help to the discussion at hand.
What is the point to throw in a ton of questions i wonder, you do never answer anything yourself with any other "fact" than .....just my opinion of course.
You and i had similar "discussions" before so i will leave it at this as i leads to nothing in the end.
 
Its my understanding the closer the numbers are the better the oil resistance is to viscosity loss, due to polymer breakdown.
Example 10w-40 is 10wt that has added polymers to make it 40wt protection when at running temp. 20w-40 startout with 20w then adds half the polymers to get to the 40wt protection level. 40wt well its just 40wt.
Multi viscosity oils were created for daily drivers. Turned on and of multiple times a day, in the dead winter or the heat of summer. With little to no warmup time.
Most of our cars are not that, our cars start a couple times a week I imagine they get a good warmup then driven around when shutdown they either fire back up before the oil thickens are get parked in the garage until next weekend.
These cars are a perfect case for straight wt oil SAE30 or 40wt. Just make sure its not non- detergent.
Well, that's a whole other debate too I suppose - this one being about zinc and such...but ok, for the record:
My experiences with engine oil for lo these 6 decades above dirt was started like most - from what I was taught
young in life, which typically involved cars of the 50's-up - and they all were based on using multi-grade dino oil,
since that's what was around then.

My father, along with mechanic uncles and later on, garage owners I worked for in my teen years would only use
"straight weight" oil in higher mileage rides (the belief was it helped with oil consumption) - and of course, in most
anything industrial or agricultural, too.
Before the advent of synthetics, the debate seemed usually over detergent or non-detergent in those days;
as I recall, that was usually settled according to what the original engine supplier recommended.

That's a pattern I continue to this day on both auto engines originally designed with dino oil (my '68 GTX, for example)
and my ag stuff (like my tractor, which runs straight 30 wt. as recommended by the Japanese engine builder).

That said, I'm also a big proponent of synthetics - because I've SEEN what they can do when used in engines designed
for them (the first for me being the little "Shelby" 2.2 critters of the mid-80's, followed later by other rides including
a brand new 5.0 Mustang I bought in 1988). There was literally zero wear in those engines at 100k miles; heck, the
Ferd was at 250k when I sold it years later and the guys who bought it (to restore - imagine that!) were incredulous
at the condition of the drivetrain, even though it never had an easy day with me, pounding on it like I did for years.
Those engines were designed to take advantage of synthetics - and they did so with amazing results.

Nowadays, dozens of cars and a whole lot of years later, I've never had an engine failure where I've used the oil that
an engine was originally designed for.
Ever. Never ever.
The only engine failures I've ever either owned or witnessed all involved those older (60s-70s) engines like ours in
these cars where someone thought they were doing the engine a great service by using the "best" oil in it -
synthetic.
I've seen cams and/or lifters wiped in short order before my very eyes from this...
And I'll never make that mistake again.

So, current roll call time here:
- 2012 Charger 5.7 hemi - full synthetic from new, Hastings filter - 100k, zero issues
- 2004 Ram 5.7 hemi - full synthetic from new, Hastings or Mopar filter - 190k, no issues
- 2003 M-F (actually Iseki) 4wd diesel tractor - straight 30 wt., Iseki filter - 1400 hours, zero issues
- 1968 GTX with 440 number who knows, bought used - 484 purpleshaft + lifters - 15W-50 Driven oil + Hastings -
zero issues

This has all always worked for me; further, I've never experienced a case where it didn't.
Think I'll stick with what works, regardless of whatever "science" there might be to the contrary. :thumbsup:
 
No-The stuff I am talking about, came in a quart can. I'll try to find the can I have and post a picture of it.
Here is what they sold in 1980. Stuff was black and stunk just like that smell when you crack the main bolts on an untouched hi-po mopar engine.

20220605_153755.jpg


20220605_153742.jpg
 
Well, that's a whole other debate too I suppose - this one being about zinc and such...but ok, for the record:
My experiences with engine oil for lo these 6 decades above dirt was started like most - from what I was taught
young in life, which typically involved cars of the 50's-up - and they all were based on using multi-grade dino oil,
since that's what was around then.

My father, along with mechanic uncles and later on, garage owners I worked for in my teen years would only use
"straight weight" oil in higher mileage rides (the belief was it helped with oil consumption) - and of course, in most
anything industrial or agricultural, too.
Before the advent of synthetics, the debate seemed usually over detergent or non-detergent in those days;
as I recall, that was usually settled according to what the original engine supplier recommended.

That's a pattern I continue to this day on both auto engines originally designed with dino oil (my '68 GTX, for example)
and my ag stuff (like my tractor, which runs straight 30 wt. as recommended by the Japanese engine builder).

That said, I'm also a big proponent of synthetics - because I've SEEN what they can do when used in engines designed
for them (the first for me being the little "Shelby" 2.2 critters of the mid-80's, followed later by other rides including
a brand new 5.0 Mustang I bought in 1988). There was literally zero wear in those engines at 100k miles; heck, the
Ferd was at 250k when I sold it years later and the guys who bought it (to restore - imagine that!) were incredulous
at the condition of the drivetrain, even though it never had an easy day with me, pounding on it like I did for years.
Those engines were designed to take advantage of synthetics - and they did so with amazing results.

Nowadays, dozens of cars and a whole lot of years later, I've never had an engine failure where I've used the oil that
an engine was originally designed for.
Ever. Never ever.
The only engine failures I've ever either owned or witnessed all involved those older (60s-70s) engines like ours in
these cars where someone thought they were doing the engine a great service by using the "best" oil in it -
synthetic.
I've seen cams and/or lifters wiped in short order before my very eyes from this...
And I'll never make that mistake again.

So, current roll call time here:
- 2012 Charger 5.7 hemi - full synthetic from new, Hastings filter - 100k, zero issues
- 2004 Ram 5.7 hemi - full synthetic from new, Hastings or Mopar filter - 190k, no issues
- 2003 M-F (actually Iseki) 4wd diesel tractor - straight 30 wt., Iseki filter - 1400 hours, zero issues
- 1968 GTX with 440 number who knows, bought used - 484 purpleshaft + lifters - 15W-50 Driven oil + Hastings -
zero issues

This has all always worked for me; further, I've never experienced a case where it didn't.
Think I'll stick with what works, regardless of whatever "science" there might be to the contrary. :thumbsup:
Im in agreement. My completely stock 1968 383 gets 10w-30 HDEO. When I rebuild a slightly hotter engine I will built around 15w-50 HDEO. I do plan to drive the car very regularly almost a daily driver. If i was building a race engine heavy valve springs, and high lift cam. You can bet it would get a steady diet if straight weight racing oil. I believe it keeps its oil film better than mutli-grade oil. And for me leave the snake oil on the store self.
 
Don't forget the consideration of ambient temperatures in choosing your oil, like where i live we see 80* F difference in temperature between the seasons.
I am using a 20W50 grade oil which aids in flow when colder, throwing in a single grade 40 oil could give issues when cold.
Viscosity on modern cars is so low (0W30, etc) due to the tight tolerances that are achieved during manufacturing, which was not yet possible 50-60 years ago.
If you rebuild your engine the machinists now days can reach those same tight tolerances, bearing shells produced are much more refined so do piston rings.
Same goes for the metal properties, stronger materials with less thermal expansion properties.
Oil weight requirements start with the build specs of the engine.
 
Don't forget the consideration of ambient temperatures in choosing your oil, like where i live we see 80* F difference in temperature between the seasons.
I am using a 20W50 grade oil which aids in flow when colder, throwing in a single grade 40 oil could give issues when cold.
Viscosity on modern cars is so low (0W30, etc) due to the tight tolerances that are achieved during manufacturing, which was not yet possible 50-60 years ago.
If you rebuild your engine the machinists now days can reach those same tight tolerances, bearing shells produced are much more refined so do piston rings.
Same goes for the metal properties, stronger materials with less thermal expansion properties.
Oil weight requirements start with the build specs of the engine.
0-W30? That is going back to the dark ages. :)

1654487697920.png
 
Yes, I would imagine that's the same stuff. Although the earlier stuff came in quart cans that you opened with a push in oil spout or a can opener. And I'm sure the part number was an earlier number.
Here is what they sold in 1980. Stuff was black and stunk just like that smell when you crack the main bolts on an untouched hi-po mopar engine.

View attachment 1294699

View attachment 1294700
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top