Lucas Response To Zinc Additive

-
I use GM Engine Oil Supple-ment (E.O.S.) carries PN 1052367 Available from GM dealers for about $10 per bottle for my my solid cam engine.
 
megajoltman said:
I use GM Engine Oil Supple-ment (E.O.S.) carries PN 1052367 Available from GM dealers for about $10 per bottle for my my solid cam engine.
Click to expand...

I tried to buy some of that about 2 years ago & they wanted about $16 for it at the dealership. Even the guy behind the counter said he didn't think it was worth that much. I still think it's good stuff though.
 
Amsoil has an assortment of synthetic oils with a reasonably high zinc and phosphorous content. It can be difficult to know exactly what our favorite oil has without an oil analysis or recent published figures. As noted, most newer oils, including diesel oils, have reduced levels. But before buying additives for each oil change and possibly altering what the oil manufacturers engineered into their oil, crunch some numbers to see if it is cost effective compared to "factory" zinc/ phosphorous enhanced oils. However, for break-in, I will likely add something to the temporary, conventional break-in oil after my older stock runs out. Then I use synthetics.

Newer vehicles also have gone to roller lifters on one of the highest pressure points in an engine, so they don't need high zinc levels. And there is the emissions/catalytic converter issue.

Smart, but sometimes labor-intensive, break-in proceedures are a big factor in long cam life. High zinc oils are added insurance. Obviously, I think Amsoil synthetics are the best insurance. But at least we can all share our info so others can make their own educated decisions.

High zinc Amsoil products:
https://www.amsoil.com/dealer/techservicesbulletin/MotorOil/TSB MO-2007-08-08 Flat Tappet.pdf

Amsoil source & info:
www.thelubepage.com
 
67DARTGTCONV said:
684mulas is probally the closest to having the right amount, 1/3 bottle per oil change.
Click to expand...

How do you reckon that? 684mulas said his 1/3 bottle is a guess; I did the math and presented the evidence to prove 1/3 bottle per oil change is still 4x too much.
 
The Lucas rep said 5200 ppm with a full bottle. If you take 1/3 of the bottle you would end up with roughly around 1750 ppm. Close enough for me to 1200ppm. (did I do this right?)
More cannot be as bad as not enough. 1 cam/lifters already destroyed

S0me of the engine rebuilder's qouted on the thread recommended using the whole bottle.

By the way the Rep may have been French Canadian ???, spelling errors happen all the time as a lot of my customers are French. When I reply on some of the letters I get from them the spell check setting is embedded in the letter and tries to correct to French spelling and you can get some goofy corrections
 
Stormy69 said:
did anyone miss the fact that zinc content was less in oil made in the late 60's than it is today???
Click to expand...
i said that in my first post on this subject.. hence "where's the million of cam failiors"? just another marketing ploy that some **** eyed kid made up. Gas on the otherhand was over 3 GPG (grams per gallon) prior to 1982 then it went to 1.1 GPG in 1983, 0.5 GPG in 1985, 0.1 GPG in 1986, then to 0 GPG in 1988. well known fact that all an regular exhaust seat needs is .5 GPG to be highly effective at protection. Damn EPA.
 
so only 2.5 tablespoons is needed of the lucas additive? that saves alot of money hopefully your math is right and the lucas guy isnt wrong
 
slantsixdan said:
Hold on a sec, let's not swallow this sales pitch from Lucas quite so enthusiastically. Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time trusting technical information from someone who doesn't know how to spell a simple, easy word like Zinc. There's no "k" in it. I lose even more confidence when the genius from Lucas doesn't know the difference between "ware" and "wear". :roll:

But this isn't English class, so let's focus on the science of what we're trying to do here. 5200ppm is many times greater Zn concentration than needed, and more is not better. It's been well documented that a 0.10% to 0.12% concentration of Zn and P is optimal for flat-tappet engines, for example in SAE papers 770087, 831760, and 2004-01-2986 (these papers were published in 1977, 1983, and 2004, respectively, so the recommendation is not reduced for compliance with the latest super ultra low emission vehicle requirements).But, that data's old, and there's newer information that the ZDDP scare is even more exaggerated than the unleaded-gasoline scare or the Freon-12 scare: there is plenty of life after all three.

If you have determined to use a ZDDP additive anyhow, a whole bottle would be massive, huge overkill and a needless waste of money, not to mention the likelihood of screwing up the chemistry engineered into the motor oil —*take a look around; every time a petrochemist is asked about additives, they practically beg and plead with the public not to add anything because it usually doesn't help and it quite often makes things worse.

The Lucas rep states that a whole bottle of their magical moose milk should be used at each oil change to bring a 5-quart system to 5200ppm Zn. The moose milk comes in a 16oz bottle, which means if the Lucas rep is telling the truth*, the additive itself contains 39,600ppm Zn, or about 4%.

Here's the math: we're running ½qt (16oz) of Lucas moose milk plus 5qt of engine oil. That's 16 ounces of moose milk and 144 ounces of engine oil, or 11.1% moose milk and 88.9% engine oil. The engine oil by itself contains about 800ppm Zn, so we subtract 800 from 5200 and get 4400 coming from the 16 ounces of moose milk. 4400 divided by 11.1% gives us 39,600ppm (or 0.6336 oz) of Zn in a 16oz bottle of moose milk.

What we want to wind up with is between 1000ppm and 1200ppm of Zn in our crankcase, so let's say we want 1100ppm, or 0.11%. There's already 0.08% Zn in a quart of the latest SM engine oil (actually, most of them run a little on the high side, as it seems, but we'll use the 800 figure). In 5 quarts of SM engine oil, therefore, you've got 0.128 ounce of Zn. Therefore, you're a little under 0.05 ounce short of what you want.

You're holding in your hand a bottle of moose milk containing 0.6336 oz of Zn. That means you are holding a bottle containing just over twelve and a half doses of Zn. You would need to add just 1.25 oz of moose milk to a 5-quart fill of SM engine oil to have the optimal 1100ppm of Zn. That's 2.5 Tablespoons, folks, not a whole bottle!

* - Whether the Lucas rep is telling the truth is an open question. The company is known to make false claims which, if followed, will damage your engine. Link goes to a demonstration on bobistheoilguy.com , widely regarded as the go-to place for knowledge about engine oil and relatied matters.
Click to expand...

Dan, you hit it right on the head, and then some!
 
A-BOMB360 said:
i said that in my first post on this subject.. hence "where's the million of cam failiors"? just another marketing ploy that some **** eyed kid made up. Gas on the otherhand was over 3 GPG (grams per gallon) prior to 1982 then it went to 1.1 GPG in 1983, 0.5 GPG in 1985, 0.1 GPG in 1986, then to 0 GPG in 1988. well known fact that all an regular exhaust seat needs is .5 GPG to be highly effective at protection. Damn EPA.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss it. It's not just the oils, but the combination of the oil, the wear inherrent in the blocks' lifter bores now, ingorance, production screw up (remember the flat lifter bases..) and the single largest factor... The cam lobe designs. You simply didn't have the rates of lift in a flat tappet cam back then. The ones that came a little close were MP's mushrooms and Ultradyne's specials. There were plenty of cam failures back then. But not in the volume (especially when you consider the percentages) you do now. Back then about 5% of cams failed due to break in or "issues" (my estimate anyway...lol). And that was 5% of everything that was V8s in service... Back when it was only V8s or straight 6s. Now it seems like the total number of V8 users is way down across the board, but closer to 25% or more fail. The snottier the rate of lift, the more likely it is to fail.
 
Bottom line it's internal friction we're talking about here.
You will never go wrong with a fully synthetic oil like amsoil,royal purple, mobil one etc.
Break your engine in with standard mineral oil and an additive like e.o.s. for example, and then switch to synthetic. It's well worth the insurance and the cost isn't that bad if you factor in the wiped cam lobes and replaced parts you face.
Check it out, synthetics work.
 
A friend of mine has a shop here in town. He told me that he could tell a motor that had run a "lucas" additive. He said that it all ended up in the bottom of the oil pan.

This gentleman has ALL the certification Diplomas for auto and diesel so I trust him. I just run Valvoline racing oil. I change it every 4 races and my 340 has over 1000 passes on it. I pulled the pan after the '08 season and it still looked good. I was actually quite suprised. :-D
 
moper said:
I didn't miss it. It's not just the oils, but the combination of the oil, the wear inherrent in the blocks' lifter bores now, ingorance, production screw up (remember the flat lifter bases..) and the single largest factor... The cam lobe designs. You simply didn't have the rates of lift in a flat tappet cam back then. The ones that came a little close were MP's mushrooms and Ultradyne's specials. There were plenty of cam failures back then. But not in the volume (especially when you consider the percentages) you do now. Back then about 5% of cams failed due to break in or "issues" (my estimate anyway...lol). And that was 5% of everything that was V8s in service... Back when it was only V8s or straight 6s. Now it seems like the total number of V8 users is way down across the board, but closer to 25% or more fail. The snottier the rate of lift, the more likely it is to fail.
Click to expand...
good points. i just though most of the cam failors in the day were due to over-zellous use of crazy valvesprings. same logic for today.
 
Just a point of note: Any oil that has an SM rating or CJ rating on the bottle has only 800 ppm of zinc regardless of what the marketeers have put on the bottle. Valvoline for example makes two types of VR1 one with the SM rating and only has 800 ppm and the other that has no sevice rating and does contain more. The VR1 you see on the shelf at your Local chain store is the SM rated stuff.
 
C130 Chief said:
You asked for a sales pitch, and got it. Ask just about any company WHY you NEED their product and you will likely get a similar response. They are in business to sell a product, nothing more, nothing less.

Most browsers and email programs have a pretty good spell checker built in. I find misspelled words, and flagrant misuse of form and punctuation to be offensively unprofessional in business communication. Such disregard for the English language is an insult to the intelligence of potential customers. Although it may be possible that "some really dumb dudes came up with this really good stuff" I'll take my chances elsewhere, thank you.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree on the "proper" use of English. Who made the rules? who put them in charge of making the rules? If I write a sentence and you understand it then we communicated,which is really what is important.
 
in response to post above on correct english and spelling...

several years ago...someone wanted a job interview ...they left a note with on my desk...he misspelled both my first name and last name...and i have pretty simple name....

he did not get an interview.....so i guess we communicated also...
 
dgc333 said:
Just a point of note: Any oil that has an SM rating or CJ rating on the bottle has only 800 ppm of zinc regardless of what the marketeers have put on the bottle. Valvoline for example makes two types of VR1 one with the SM rating and only has 800 ppm and the other that has no sevice rating and does contain more. The VR1 you see on the shelf at your Local chain store is the SM rated stuff.
Click to expand...

I just bought VR1 30 wt. at Napa and it has an SJ rating and claims on the bottle to have a ZDDP additive.
 
Good, everytime I see VR1 at the local chain stores it's always the SM version.
 
A couple of simple points not discussed yet. Mopar cams are failure prone because they have not been updated since the 80s. Cams are part of a system including the cam, lifters and springs. All components should be changed as a unit and compliment each other. Simple 30 weight oil and proper break-in procedures should suffice to prevent cam failure provided a quality cam from reputable manufacturer is used, Reground cams from Summit and JC Whitney and similiar sources are probably not the best choice for durability and longevity. Hope the original poster heeds the advice provided in the responses.
 
I just talked to a customer of mine yesterday who sells Cen-Pe-Co. They seem to specialize in diesel oils. He was going to check with his rep about zinc levels in their oil. John Deere is in my town and Northland provides all the oil for the new tractors. I need to contact them about their oil with zinc. Mike
 
Brad Penn also makes the oil with the correct additive or you can buy a supplement bottle and use your own oil.......
 
ACCCC recommends the use of Heavy Duty Engine Oils in older vehicles. There is no need to add ZDDP to a properly formulated engine oil.

There is no need to fear SM oils. The Starburst (ILSAC GF-4) rating is what specifies 600-800 ppm of phosphorus. CJ-4/SM HDEOs typically have 1000-1200 ppm of phosphorus, which is plenty for flat tappet valve trains. If you need more, the 15W-40 CI-4/SL oils typically have 1300-1400 ppm.

ACCCC Engine Oil Article
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top