Cheap alternative to pricey flat tappet oil in street cars...

-

DaveBonds

Garage Trash
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
2,173
Reaction score
187
Location
Lakewood, CO
After discovering that my daily driver, '92 Cherokee ran the AMC flat tappet hydraulic cam/ lifter arrangement, the first thing that I did was search for a roller set, because I am not thrilled with the price and availability of oils containing the correct amount of zinc, phosphorus, other metals and detergents. I have yet to find a roller cam, and I'm beginning to wonder if these engines simply don't have the room for a link. At any rate, I'm stuck with zinc and phosphorus fortified oil.

If you run a racing oil off the shelf, like VR1 by Valvoline, specifically that is sold at auto parts suppliers, instead of Wal-Mart, they are void of detergents, but have the right amount of other additives for flat tappet sets. You need some detergents, but even Rotella T and other diesel graded oils are now running lower than 1000ppm of Zinc and Phosphorus, which is not really adequate. I'm also not thrilled with 15w40 in an engine that calls for 10w30, especially in the winter.

So I started looking for a cheaper alternative than running the synthetic blend Penn Grade 1, at $98 for a 12qt box, which will get me a little over 2 changes and puts me over $50 for an oil change on my daily driver.

I stumbled upon some data, from Southwest Research labs, regarding Lucas Oil's break in oil and found some interesting numbers.

Lucas Break In Oil SAE30w has around 5500ppm of Zinc and around 6000ppm of Phosphorus. that is roughly 5x the amount, adequate to run on a regular basis, in a flat tappet system, even under high spring pressures.

The sufficient amount of zinc that you want to shoot for is right in the range of 1100-1400ppm and more importantly, Phosphorus at around 1000-1300ppm. If you climb any higher, the galvanic properties of the metals, especially the zinc, will actually rust the block and can corrode bronze and brass parts, like your distributor shaft bushing, etc.

Summit Racing carries this stuff at right around $20 per 5qt container, which means that if you cut a 5qt container of your choice of crude, synthetic or blended oil with 1qt replaced with this stuff, it bumps the price of your oil change about $2-3 ($4 per change x5 minus the cost of one of the quarts in the 5qt container you save for the next change, or top off), which is about half the cost of most oils that have sufficient detergents and metals, to run on the street.

The Lucas break-in oil has no detergents, so it also inherently lowers the level of detergent in the conventional oil, down to a reasonable level.

One of the 5qt containers sold by summit and used as a replacement quart/ additive in conventional oil will last 5 changes, which on average, will go longer than an entire year's worth of changes, if you change your oil every 3000mi or 3months, which should be done on oils that have heavy metals in the additive packs, because they use them up. New oils can go longer, because they don't have these, because the engines don't need them.

Anyway, I thought I'd pass this bit of knowledge on to everyone here, seeing as how running modern oil for our flat tappet engines has become a damaging and costly concern, these days.

If you read up on Lucas' website, it says that the oil can be used as a suppliment to prevent premature engine wear, but what sold me was the extremely elevated levels of metals in the oil that allows it to be used at a sufficient additive/ single quart replacement.
 
Not too bad, for what it does.

I think the cost of the Lucas break in is $4 per change, or so, a little more if you've got more than 5qts. I'd be interested to see what the lab numbers are of that stuff.

After doing the math, if you buy the 8oz bottle that treats 32 quarts, you would get 6 changes out of the bottle, at 28.00 per bottle, so it is only a touch more expensive per change. $5.60 per change, vs $4.00 per change, goes a change further, so you spend less in shipping by one change per year, which I haven't factored in.

But another thing to consider is if you can get it from summit, depending on how much you buy from Summit each year, you may get it shipped for free included in your order, if it's over $100.

It also looks like cam shield comes in 64oz for $170, which treats 256 quarts, or just over 51 changes. That works out to $3.32 per change and beats Lucas, but 51 changes on a classic car that gets maybe 3-4 changes per year if you drive it alot, works out to about 13 years worth of oil changes on one car. I think that stuff might go bad in 13 years. lol Not a bad idea if you've got a fleet of old cars with a few race cars that use more.

I think we should use this thread as a resource pool for people looking for alternatives to expensive oils to run with flat tappet cams.
 
I am so very glad I don't have to worry about this stuff. All my motors have roller cams in them.
 
I run a quart of lucas break in additive in every new motor roller or not and after 500 miles change it out with amzoil and all is good;)
 
Amsoil is good stuff. So is Redline and Brad Penn, if you don't mind the price.

I'd love to rollerize my Jeep, but again, I can't seem to find a roller cam and lifter set for a 4.0 anywhere and I'm beginning to wonder if there is no room for a lifter link in the engine.

I think Brad Penn's Penn Grade 1 runs about $8 per quart. Going with conventional crude base stock store brand oil and a quart of the Lucas, puts my change at $24+ filter, which is right about half of the cost of running Bradd Penn's stuff.

I think I'm going to experiment with some Mobil 1 in the winter and use a quart of 5w30 in it, to trim down on the SAE30w viscosity, of the Lucas. Oil pressure is slightly elevated.
 
If you had enough friends in the area that wanted some, you could get together and order the $304.40 14 pk of the 8oz. bottles of Cam-shield to get a good price. If I figured it correctly it would be about 6 cents an oz. higher than the single 64oz. bottle.
 
I have a 92 suburban with a flat hyd cam ,with everything stock and 250000 miles and the only thing I changed was the timing gears ,I've only used the cheapest oils I could find but did change it every 3000 miles. 10w30. I drive this truck everyday ,unless your using high spring pressures on the valves, regular oil is fine ,most of the fuel Inj engines have smaller cams ,less pressures on the cam lobes if stock.
 
Shell Rotella 15-40, and a blue bottle of STP........blue bottle is almost twice the zinc of the red bottle
 
some times i use this or the other
 

Attachments

  • Picture 330.jpg
    27.8 KB · Views: 1,055
  • Picture 331.jpg
    23.2 KB · Views: 1,043
  • Picture 332.jpg
    19.8 KB · Views: 1,066
Good to know on fuel inj. engines. I doubt I hurt anything. I know that the Scamp's cam bit the dust because of it's age and carb + no phosphorus.

The only thing that made me nervous is that in a lot of the jeep forums, lifter wear and ticking lifters are becoming a more common problem with the 4.0L.

be careful with the break in additives. If they treat an entire pan of oil to break-in zinc and phosphorus levels, they are sky high and can actually rust the block from the galvanic properties of the zinc. 1400ppm of zinc is right where you want to be.

I've never heard of the Lucas classic car oil. What does that run you?
 
Dave,

I did a quick and dirty spreadsheet to compute how much lucas break in you'd need to put in with a std shelf oil assuming the lucas has that Zn and Ph content. Here are some numbers that makes your solution an even better choice.

Shelf oil with 1000 PPM of each requires ~.3 Qt of Lucas in a 6 Quart oil change to reach the desired high end numbers you posted.

If the shelf oil has 800ppm of each, the Lucas required is ~.5 qt.

That makes the solution even less expensive.
 
where did you get the idea that VR1 doesn't have enough detergent? They have a not for street use that is the same as the VR1 and is a race oil but the silver VR1 has plenty of detergent. I agree with the above post if your running stock type spring PSI you don't need much zinc, in fact when you get over 1,000ppm you run the risk of CAT problems the regular VR1 states not for cars running CAT converters.
 
it's all marketing hogwash...

i have a 2008 evo 10 (well my boy drives it now but... anyways)
they specifically require you to buy and use Mobil 1 syntetic, and only Mobile 1. the engine bay has stickers etc. if you dont it will void the warranty. ok great. we been using that no problems for 6 years yet.

Mobil 1 is, according to the marketing sites, notoriously low in zinc. TERRIBLE for old cars. (funny i ran it for years on my '68 dart 340 and never had problems, ran it to 7k rpms many many many times)

now the real funny thing.... in '08 the 2.0 liter engines by mitsubishi were redesigned. it's an all aluminum block, etc. and guesssssss what. they did away with roller lifters that year. LOL

(in the 4B11T) the use of a direct-acting valvetrain eliminates the need of the roller rocker arm configuration previously used in the 4G63.

p.s. anyone who is a chemist will tell you that zinc is not a lubricant. it is more of a sacrificial metal, in that it will oxidize/corrode FIRST (more reactive) and thereby protects iron/steel from corrosion. it's a corrosion protectant.
 
it's all marketing hogwash...

i have a 2008 evo 10 (well my boy drives it now but... anyways)
they specifically require you to buy and use Mobil 1 syntetic, and only Mobile 1. the engine bay has stickers etc. if you dont it will void the warranty. ok great. we been using that no problems for 6 years yet.

Mobil 1 is, according to the marketing sites, notoriously low in zinc. TERRIBLE for old cars. (funny i ran it for years on my '68 dart 340 and never had problems, ran it to 7k rpms many many many times)

now the real funny thing.... in '08 the 2.0 liter engines by mitsubishi were redesigned. it's an all aluminum block, etc. and guesssssss what. they did away with roller lifters that year. LOL



p.s. anyone who is a chemist will tell you that zinc is not a lubricant. it is more of a sacrificial metal, in that it will oxidize/corrode FIRST (more reactive) and thereby protects iron/steel from corrosion. it's a corrosion protectant.

I've wondered the same thing about all the over head cam engines with cam on bucket configurations and why lack of Zinc and/or Phosphorous this doesn't effect them.

I think the Zinc/Phosphorous was a knee jerk in the 90's when new cams were going flat and it was found that offshore lifters were not made to the hardness spec required. The only cams I've ever seen go flat were from another issues, either too tight of valve adjustment, or over fueling at break in contaminating the oil.

Mobile 1 has killed more rod bearings in WRX engines than plain abuse and misuse.
 
I use VR1 off-road 20w 50 or regular oil with a Zinc additive. And I also change it every 3,000 miles in all my vehicles. That being said I have a friend that used to work as a tech For GM. Here is an interesting internal memo regarding Zinc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths (fig. 1). Here are some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the fiction behind these myths.
The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania (fig. 2).
A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.
Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the unfamiliar are somehow "bad."

The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent engine oils
are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as “heavy-duty” oil.

Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil consumption. After a thorough purge by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible consequence.

If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place, this myth never would have started. Amazingly, there are still a few people today, 60 years later, who believe that they need to use non-detergent oil in their older cars. Apparently, it takes many years for an oil myth to die.

The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put this one to rest.

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) (fig. 3 and 4) 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 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).
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.



Bob Olree
GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Take it with a grain of salt as I'm not sure whether to believe it or not........... What I'm doing works and I've never had a failed flat tappet cam to date. I will keep doing what I'm doing as it works for me. I will revisit the issue if oils change again.........
 
How do spring pressures play a role in these test.

Testing using a v6 with a flat tappet may be great. Are the spring pressures so low, that it's relevance and results are questionable when running a large double spring on a solid flat tappet?
 
How do spring pressures play a role in these test.

Testing using a v6 with a flat tappet may be great. Are the spring pressures so low, that it's relevance and results are questionable when running a large double spring on a solid flat tappet?

That's part of the reason I take it with a grain of salt so to speak. Not enough details or proven results for my liking. Could be the same marketing geniuses that hide details and come up with back stories on parts failure so they can escape massive recalls???? And look where they are as a company now with the superior court....
 
Ah much like...

Milk does a body good...

Ad brought to you by the CA dairy farmers.
 
-
Back
Top