Well, no room for humor here, mine anyway

Not trying to discredit his study just wary of people telling me what is best without knowing where they are coming from. He credits the engineers later in the read. Thanks for the post.

 

My bad man, I misinterpreted lol. Some guys are already applying a little heat to the subject, already getting hard to tell humor from anger lol. I appreciate both the humor and the skepticism.

I jumped on the rotella band wagon because after everything I had read it "just makes sense". The older I get, the more I learn that just because something makes sense from one perspective, doesn't mean it makes sense from the other 99 perspectives. I've always been all about the research on any purchase or project I undertake, so I decided that maybe it was time to actually do some diligence on what I put in my engine and not just go with what JoeBob forum member says he's used forever.... Or what the manufacturer says

 

King, No worries we are cool, I was just reading about his multiple Ferrari's and his Maybach and I was like, an oil engineer? They usually are not into that.

I use Rotella 15-40 almost entirely based on the zinc argument and its apparent benefit to our tappet based valve train. One question that I did not check yet is if the T6 Rotella 5-40 Syn. still has the same zinc additive as the std 15-40 dino oil? If so, kind of makes both worlds happy/ier assuming the zinc part is indeed a benefit. Anybody know if the T6 has the same zinc levels?

 

You are referring to the second link I believe. That guy is mostly discussing viscosity, and he's the one with the high end exotic cars. He's describing In detail how oil viscosity works and the common misconceptions that are leading people to use oil that is far to thick for their engine.

The first article is written by the engineer, with a background in American V8's. His article explains what zinc does in oil (among other topics) and why it's no longer necessary in high levels, even with solid tappet engines. I was also convinced on rotella for the zinc argument. That argument is pretty much no longer valid, if you choose oil wisely. Shear rating was another spec that I was concerned with and rotella also falls short on that front.

Everyone really should read the entire blog, at least up to the point where he lists is oil ratings. Everything before that point is about the science of oil and the methodology of his testing. Very enlightening and will answer almost every argument that's been made in favor of diesel oil.

 

I hope my posts weren't among those interpreted as anger. Definitely not the intention.

Anyway, I'm currently reading through the blog and I'm going to throw in the things I disagree with along with a few things I do agree with, coming from a mechanical engineering background myself (though no degree). I will be critiquing everything including his opinions and methods, not simply the facts.

Well that's not entirely true. Sure, it's not the only determining factor, but it's still one more piece of information that can be used to make a well informed decision when used in conjunction with a number of other pieces of information. Actually, further up he states this:

And he's right. It isn't any guarantee of sufficient protection. However, up to 1,400 ppm it does still help, and this is well known information. I believe Rotella sits around 1,100 or 1,200 ppm. Definitely below damaging amounts, well within the protective territory.

This is the big one I've seen so far. Yea, sure, that wear has already occurred. However that is still useful information because you can make appropriate changes to prevent that wear in the next change, or do another test. If it's based on a mechanical failure in process then you will figure that out soon enough and you will know to disregard those numbers. However, if it continues for more than a couple of changes without anything breaking then you can assume it's the oil allowing excessive wear.

It's more like closing the barn door after one horse has gotten out, but you still have 30 more horses in the barn. You want to hang onto those other 30 horses even if you can't get the one back.

You can because science, especially physics, is a constantly changing field that we have only scratched the surface of. This is, of course, just being pedantic. I'll assume that the science is sound in the studies cited until I find conflicting information from an equally sound study.

I agree, though as I stated above it is a contributing factor.

What? No break-in procedure is required? This is specifically talking about flat tappet cams. Unless there's information below that proves this I'm saying it's flat out wrong. No oil is perfect, even the oils on this list, and the camshaft is not constantly oiled. If it sits for a while then the oil drips off back into the pan, meaning at least at start up it is running dry. That's why you need to break in a cam/lifters. It creates well mated and hardened surfaces that wear considerably slower.

Not the guy, but one who wrote in. Come on. I'm 21 and I am more meticulous than almost all 40+ year olds I know including my parents and grandparents. I taught myself. Furthermore, I have quite a few friends who are on at least the same level of care as the last generation if not a higher one. Not to say it's the rule, but I definitely don't see a different percentage of people who take care between generations.

As is common knowledge, that is too much zddp content. Actually, more than double sitting at ~3200ppm. Also, I honestly don't know how other oils stack up, but 3ppm molybdenum disulfide sounds low. Also it's a grade 1 oil which is the least refined oil above crude oil. I'm going to wait for further information to make a judgement. However, at first glance these numbers already indicate that this is the wrong oil for the application, or for most applications considering the zddp content. This further reinforces the belief that zddp content can be a useful piece of information when determining oil quality.

A little proud, I think. Definitely not unbiased.

I'd be interested to see how this additive stacks up when added to an oil that is a higher group number and has a lower zddp content. In this oil it's still a band aid. And you can not say that the additive totally accounts for the lack of failure. Yea, I'd say that it was a big determining factor, but this is a single data point with hundreds of variables. The engine is not run exactly the same every time it's run, the atmospheric, temperate, and driving conditions will all be slightly different. Oh, and by the way, he changed lifter brands. Yea, he still saw a single failure without the additive with these lifters, but again that's only a single very small data point.

Again, the ZDDP content is WAY too high. Actually higher than the previous. Still reinforcing the idea that knowing the ZDDP content is a valuable glimpse into the effectiveness of an oil. Also note the considerably higher molybdenum disulfide level, which I would think would work in this oil's favor though not necessarily (or evidentally) enough compared to other oils. I'd also venture to guess the high moly content is a big contributing factor to this oils cost.

Two data points are definitely not enough for me to grow faith in these tests or his ability to translate them, especially when there are figures in them which contradict something he said earlier; "And looking at the zinc and phosphorus levels is completely worthless..."

Furthermore, nothing scientific can "completely confirm" anything. No test is infallible.

[quote]He has built many engines over the years, always using Crane Cams solid or hydraulic cams and never had a failure. So, he’s an experienced engine builder, used parts from Crane Cams, a reputable Industry Leader, and used oil with plenty of zinc. Problem is, he is among those who think any oil is fine, as long as it has plenty of zinc in it. However, my Engineering tests of the Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, Break-In oil, shows that it produces a film strength load carrying capacity of only 56,020 psi, which ranks it 190th out of 198 oils tested so far, and puts it in the UNDESIRABLE wear protection category, even though it’s high in zinc. And my Engineering tests of the 10W40 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, shows that it produces a film strength load carrying capacity of only 57,864 psi, which ranks it 186th out of 198 oils tested so far, and also puts it in the UNDESIRABLE wear protection category, even though it has a high zinc level. That of course means that 189 other oils provide better wear protection than his Break-In oil, and 185 other oils provide better wear protection than his after break-in oil.[quote]

I would be willing to put money on the idea that break in oils have intentionally low film strength. The point of breaking in a cam and lifter set is to allow them to wear slightly, mate together, and work harden. Now, I haven't done the tests so I don't know how low the perfect balance is. That said, I also don't think you want a perfect oil that won't allow them to wear together until they're running totally dry at idle during first start up.

And again, he used the same brand of oil which has already been proven to be of poor quality, especially for flat tappet cams.

I completely agree. You do not need a high zinc level to be sufficiently protective. However, is it the most cost effective way to achieve that protectiveness?

What was that you said?

Well that's scientific.

This whole paragraph is completely irrelevant to the entire paper. The only purpose it serves is to stir up sympathy which has no place in an unbiased environment.I'm here for the facts, not the story. This shows that the author, despite what he says, is not.

Yes, it can in levels that are too high. No, it isn't the best, but is it good enough depending on application? Even if not as the primary, it in low levels would surely be a valuable addition considering it can increase wear protection and for longer periods.


You... you're quoting the oil company which your earlier tests showed had too much ZDDP content. The irony is not lost on me.


Not saying it completely diminishes their testing, but it partially does.



THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. Ok, I'm sorry. I don't mean to raise my voice. I'm going to stop here for now because I am becoming biased against this guy. I will come back for the rest.


Let me leave with this: So far this guy has claimed that his testing is infallible, his testing is absolutely correct, that he can't be wrong, and he's quoted one of his sources as one of the companies who tested lowest in his testing. You scientifically can not know anything. You can say that all of the data points in a specific direction and you think that direction is correct, but you can not know it for a fact. Science is not a factual field.

 

I honestly think the Rover runs better with Rotella 15w-40. It seems quiter and less valve train noise. Maybe it is placebo. I have thought about trying another brand, but I am not going to pay a ton for oil, because I change it frequently and I don't think it let's meover 3,000 rpm. I am hardly ever in Sport mode.

But to each their own. That's the fun of it.

Man, Rotella is out, K&N filters are in, I can hardly recognize this board anymore!

 

Alex, fantastic analysis so far, keep it up.

I agree that the guy sounds pretty full of himself, BUT I think you might be clinging to the zinc argument too much. Perhaps I've misunderstood the point he was trying to make, but I'm under the impression that he is saying that although appropriate levels of zinc do in fact extend the protective life of the oil, it is unnecessary as a last line of defense if the rest of the additive pack does its job and is a mute point all together if the oil is changed frequently. High zinc bad, medium zinc fine, low zinc bad if rest of additive pack is bad.


I'm going to stay out of the break in oil discussion. I have next zero experience in that area.

 

Hmmm I wouldn't want to use any thinner oil than Rotella 15w40, because my hot oil pressures are 12-15 (idle), 50 psi (load), and you really don't want to go any lower than that. And my engine was also rebuilt to exact tolerances with all new components 1500 miles ago, so a motor sitting with 100k+ miles is likely running even lower pressure. I'm also in socal.

The main point I got from that blog is to change oil often, and use the correct weight to maintain hot oil pressure. I'll agree that there may be a better oil than rotella out there, but given how available, cheap, and tried & tested it is... I'm sticking with it. And v-power gas

The highest rated 15w40 dino oil on his list is #132 Cenpeco, rotella is at #149.

Can anyone with an oil pressure gauge report their results? I'd like to see what the 0w30 numbers are

edit: just saw that the Mobil 1 FS is 0w40. That could work well. My cold idle oil psi is 50+, so a thinner weight there shouldn't be a problem. Where did you buy it?

 

I agree that on a loose rover motor (probably with any mileage on it at all really) anything lower than a 40 weight is probably too thin. But the 15 weight is far to thick, if these guys are to be taken seriously.

I got the 0w40 at Walmart, you'll forgive me if I've forgotten what it cost, I really didn't care at the time lol. I save a little on oil changes by buying wix rather than k&n or another expensive filter.

I will note that my startups are much quieter now. Used to have a bunch of valve train noise for several seconds, even in 90 degree ambient Temps. Now there's almost nothing but starter noise and a mild exhaust leak.

 

I need to test my oil pressure, I'm sure it's probably low given that this leaky pig has over 200k on the clock.