Dino Engine Oil Additives

Since no one else has commented on this I will put in my 2 cents. I don’t have a Dino, but I have a ’67 Shelby GT350 with a 289 HIPO engine with solid lifters. These engines have a lot of internal metal on metal contact and are susceptible to wear with the reduced zinc in the current motor oils, especially the cam lobes. This topic has been discussed extensively on other Shelby related boards I am on. Some guys still vintage race these engines and put a ton of very hard, high revving time on them. Some of these guys have had wear problems with the newer oils. The current thoughts are to either use an expensive race oil that does contain zinc, or to use the very cheap Rotella T oil for diesel engines, which many of these guys seem to be using. Apparently the Rotella T oil has the same amount of, or more, zinc than the expensive oils. It is API SL rated. I currently use Rotella T 15W-40 oil (7.5 quarts) with just a bit of Lucas oil additive. I change the oil about every 1k – 2k miles, which is about one season of driving for me. I have heard that the Rotella T oil will be reformulated in the next year or so because of newer emission standards for diesel engines here in the US. After that I will probably go to the expensive racing oils. The only down side to using the Rotella T oil is that it is available at Wal-Mart so I have to pull down a hat over my head, wear dark sunglasses to disguise myself, and slink in late a night to buy the stuff. God forbid anyone seeing me buying the cheap stuff, or worse yet, seeing me putting it in my car…

 

Dino's have been known to eat camshafts and this is before the reduction of ZDDP in oils. Typically blamed on poor valve adjustment maintenance but I've read somewhere that someone claimed that the cams were not properly hardened from new. I guess the only ones that would really know are Web Cam or Dema Elgin who weld up and regrind Dino cams.

Have you read this? http://www.lnengineering.com/oil.html

 

Excellent reference, Thanks!
Jim

 

Looks like SWEPCO 306 is the best bet going forward.

Only problem I see is that I have to buy a case of it. 24 qts, which will last me four years. Pelican Parts looks good for it.

OH well, it's a sacrifice that I'll just have to make.

Dave M

 

I also wonder what exactly is in Marvel's Mystery oil,

hmmmm....

 

I ordered a case of SWEPCO 306 15W 40 direct from Southwest Petroleum 1.800.433.5735 and saved about $70 over Pelican, which had at least a two-week delay on shipping the oil. The shipping from SOWEPCO was free (first order)! Plus, they were so nice on the telephone, it almost made me want to move to Dallas -- well, almost.

No slight to Pelican, just cheaper direct, and available NOW!

 

I was working on the Maserati's suspension and needed a tool so had to stop by a friends who works on several vintage racing Porsche 930s and also tends to a local Daytona and Boxer. As a side, we started talking about the oil reformulation and the importance of the additive packages. They sample the oil in each Porsche after every race and send it off for testing analysis. He has been very happy since he started including an additive in every oil change,
EOS Assembly lube GM part 1 #1052367

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/flat_tappet_cam_tech/photo_05.html

Interesting comment on protecting cams
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/flat_tappet_cam_tech/cam_construction.html


and this
http://www.virmc.com/Welcome/Cam_wear_article.htm
"If you're using an automotive grade oil with an API Service classifi*cation "SL” or "SM," you're probably not receiving the level of anti-wear protection you think you are. But there is hope. "

"...Although I don't generally recommend oil additives, there are products intended for use for assem*bly and break-in for engines with flat tappets that contain high concentrations of EP additives. One of these is GM's EOS Assembly Lube available from GM dealers under PIN 1052367 (16 oz. for $8.72)."

 

Bob the Oil guy on GM EOS #1052367

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.php?Number=473053

and an analysis

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.php?Number=808228


.

 

Well, now that the idea of discussing oil additives is back and o.k. to talk about, lets throw some stuff out there! Most people will claim that no additves are necessary with the new modern oils and for the most part is true. Lets face it oil companies are strapped with two things really, that is providing a high quality lubricant at a price that is acceptable to the general populace or masses and meeting federally mandated emissions regulations.

This all brings to bear two things and they are producing oils that are affordable and profitable. In order to make this combination work they have to utilize quality but inexpensive basestocks and additives for full ultilization of protection and profitability. Some will utilize hydro-cracked dino oils with additive packages and tag a synthetic oil lable on them, far from being true synthetics. Others will add polymers to dino oils which modify the oil to produce a multigrade, problem is that polymers don't stand the rigours of oils tortuous duties for very long and soon shear from the effects of r.p.m. and heat and very soon loose their effectiveness.

True synthetics with basestocks comprised of Polyalphaolefins, Diesters, or polyolesters are a hardier and more heat resistant molucule that can provide a much stronger lubricating film and greater range of pour points and viscosity and built in multigrade without the use of polymers. But nothing is perfect and most syn. basestocks require the use of additives.

Additive packages have been around a long time and serve the purpose of supplying oils with necessary anti wear, anti oxidant, anti scuff, detergent and many other factors that oil alone can be deficient in.

Factor in all these things and you have oil additives that while providing protection in one area such as zinc and phospherous which are anti-wear and anti-scuff additives, they also contribute to ash deposits and sludge, so most additives are not without drawbacks.

Most recently you have heard about oil companies replacing zinc and phospherous with compounds called simply "borates" they are borax derived and carry with them a high antioxidant, high detergency and the capability of penetrating metal microscopically and offering lubrication and antioxidant properties deep within the metal.

Borates are found in the following oil and fuel additives: AvBlend, the only oil and fuel additive currently approved by the FFA by scrutinized tests, Z-Max which is manufactored by the AvBlend folks and finally Motor Silk. These coincidentally pass strict emissons tests where high zinc and phospherous oils do not, which is the reason why you currently see these additives being backed off in percentages.

A side benefit of borates is that they have the ability to displace carbon and sweep it out of engines, actually remove carbon from rings, valves and combustion chambers. Almost sounds to good to be true, doesn't it? But there it is leading the way as the miracle additive that does everything for our time and the oil companies love it because it is very inexpensive to produce.

There are other expensive and performance enhancing additives that GM has said were very,very good but most could not afford them. Ferrari has a special oil for the Enzo that is going for $60/qt., would you pay $30/qt for an oil that gave you 19% more torque and 17% more horsepower dyno proven? You have to know that any oil with that kind of pedagree would be superior in every respect for anti wear as well.

 

Where does that leave us? If I pour SWEPCO 306 into my crankcase, what -- if anything -- makes sense as an additive for a low-mileage (13k) car?

The technology is anecdotally interesting, but it sounds like there's upsides & downsides to most everything (as in life). And, yes, I would merrily pay an extra 10 cents a mile for that kind of performance boost that not only didn't damage the engine, but actually protected it! For an Enzo owner, that's a rounding error.

As for Z-Max, there was some huge fight with the Federal Trade Commission in which the Gov't said the stuff is tinted mineral oil and damages engines. It got settled, but that's more than a little disconcerting!

 

Overzealous feds filed suit on Z-max for false advertizing but dropped the suit after proof was offered up showing that the compound did exactly what they said it would do. This is an example of your wise government in action. At the time of the suit The Federal Aviation Administration had already approved the compound and the U.S. Military was using it extensively.
It must have been quite the revelation for the young fed lawyers to realize at the eleventh hour that they picked the wrong fight. just a prime example of the fed. gov. not knowing what the other hand was doing.