OIL Additive Importance

[Gary - K7GLD]

It all boils down to what gives you that warm fuzzy feeling...

Maybeeeeee - but it sure helps to have, or be shown, absolute PROOF that what gives you "warm and fuzzy feelings", actually DOES work and deliver the advertised and expected results... :-laf



AND, by the same token - merely mouthing baseless criticisms or ridicule in ABSENSE of supporting data, is not too good an idea, either - logic and reason can be a great start in forming opinions - but actual test usage and data are what puts the frosting on the cake...

 

[CKelley1]

gary every thing every one has mentioned on this thread does work, and the new oil formulations will have no effect on engine life and no additive is needed. the exception would be if you install a new cam shaft , the zddp does chemically alter the metal to make it harder and slicker. we use delo400 on all 138 of our diesel and 27 gas engines. now that i am not working and have time to play i like tinkering with this one 06 and filters. i did criticize stp, it was only a vi thickener for at least 30 years that i know of, to get the same results all you had to do was buy a heaver oil. now that they added the zddp to actually do some good they are going to have to take it back out or reduce it to a point that it will not help because they can not sell it because the zddp causes early failure to the pdf. ok now if there is no useful gain in life to be had let' see if we can get wayne to give us the mpg increase in using his 5w 40 deo compared to using delo400 15w 40, add the zddp to his 5w 40 and you have the best. what i think it will show is that the extra cost of deo and zddp will not save enough mpg increase in fuel to break even but that is only a guess

 

[Turbo_Bob]

As far as STP is concerned, I've used the stuff for various uses and in various applications since the 50's - and the use of Zinc as a primary beneficial ingredient is hardly a "recent" addition - but rather, a main ingredient for many, if not ALL those years.



Personally, *I* find it sorta humorous that a big oil chemist can dip out a specific amount of Zinc material, add it to that company's engine lube, and SHAZAM, it's a sacred and magical formula that is THE PERFECT blend for use in our engines - and one that end users DARE NOT trifle with, lest they inevitably screw up the "magic" of the original, and their engines instantly begin self-destruction!



AND yet, all at once, under EPA dictate, these SAME oil company Wizards will REMOVE the Zinc that was earlier included as one of the major wear reducing compounds - and that oil is STILL deemed as the wonderful and perfect result of engineering genius - and IF some customer succumbs to the temptation to buy and add BACK the same Zinc compounds formerly used in that oil - he will be attacked and ridiculed as a victim and user of "Snake Oil" advertising and usage! :-laf



YUP - STP in their original formulation, use a high-viscosity carrier for the Zinc friction reducing portion of the formula as used in older and more worn engines - and in later years, added a lower viscosity version for newer engines - but the Zinc portion of the additive, just as offered in many major oil company engine lubes, is still in there, and still offers the same potential reduced friction and protection!



As I stated earlier in this thread, I've used STP since the 50's, always figured it provided helpful benefits, based upon other uses where it clearly outperformed other conventional lubricants - especially in critical and wear-prone areas in newspaper presses I was responsible for thru the years. Eventually, after becoming one of the diesel engine faithful, and using engine oil analysis, I could actually SEE evidence of the beneficial effects of both the STP and that nasty 'ol Frantz TP bypass filtration:



The above sample was 5000 mile on the oil, 113,000 miles on the engine, STP and a Frantz TP bypass filter - and obviously as displayed by the wear and contaminant numbers, SOMETHING I was using was working, because to this point in time, I have never had any better reports, or SEEN better ones posted by other users of any oil brands or filtration methods - and while Blackstone Labs always commented on the slighly elevated viscosity readings, they ALSO commented that that elevation obviously was having NO adverse effects upon engine wear!

Good reply.



I also use the red bottle STP additive in my race bug, along with 15-40 Rotella. I can tell visiually in the bug engine that is works, there is less black on the magnet, vs when I just used plain oil.



There are two kinds of STP, "blue bottle" and "red bottle". The blue is too thick and there is less ZDDP in it. The red has more ZDDP and does have an effect on oil pressure when real cold outside. I just take it easy the frist few miles.



I know there are lots of ZDDP products out there, but for the money STP red bottle is right price and has been around many years protecting race engines.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

gary every thing every one has mentioned on this thread does work, and the new oil formulations will have no effect on engine life and no additive is needed. the exception would be if you install a new cam shaft

The ongoing problem I have with that logic, is that *IF* the previously available oils didn't NEED any added friction-reducing components for proper camshaft break-in - but suddenly, the NEW, "no-ZDDP" containing lubes DO, doesn't that in and of itself TELL us that there IS a significant and potentially lifespan-threatening reduction in the lubricity of these new and EPA dictated oils - oils that removed the former ZDDP purely to comply with the need to protect and extend the life of the EPA required devices in the exhaust train?



Similarly, doesn't the recommended addition of ZDDP by outfits like Crane for proper break-in of their camshafts also clearly demonstrate that the addition of that ZDDP will quite logically and likely ALSO benefit and extend the life of the REST of the engine internal parts as well - and provide the basic proof needed to demonstrate the potential benefits of continual usage of ZDDP, or ZDDP-containing lubes in engines not limited by requirements that prevent it's usage in later engines?



We must sacrifice to some arbitrary degree *engine* protection of *all* vehicles, in order to assure the protection and lifespan of an exhaust device only used in SOME later vehicles?



Personally, I sorta resent that I must potentially sacrifice some portion of the lifespan of my '02 engine, simply because of EPA mandated pollution controls used in later engines that have eliminated the superior wear-protecting lubes formerly available - or else step up the oil change interval because of the more rapid deterioration of the wear-reducing additives now provided in the newer lubes...



For the record, vehicle owners went thru a similar experience years back, when lead was removed from gasoline - later engines were upgraded in the valve face and seats to combat the valve seat erosion loss of the lead created - and at that time, the EPA admitted that their dictate would damage MANY existing engines of that time period - and it DID - but they, frankly, didn't give a damn!



Yeah, sure - we all want and appreciate clean air and water - but sometimes the cavalier "Let them eat cake" attitude of the powers that be, get very abasive...

 

[CKelley1]

gary you will get longer life and better fuel milage out of your engine if you add the zddp back to the oil but no one is going to keep there truck long enough to see the difference. you should get about 1,500,000 miles with dino cj4 oil, 1,750,000 with cj4 and zddp package and 2,000,000 miles on synthetic + zddp package . our early dodges that have at or over 1,000,000 miles on them will have the rest of the truck wore out so bad i do not think i will see 1,500,000 on one much less 2,000,000. looking at it from a practical stand point if you can not see the end result why spend the money. there may be an exception to this but i am not smart enough to figure it out , the oil drag reduces mpg the one on here that add's the stp actually reduces his mpg's going to 5w synthetic from 15w and adding the zddp back in will definitely improve mpg. amzoil or shell will have to supply us with the % increase in mpg we get from the reduced drag in our 5. 9's before we can do the math to see if savings is there. cummins might be a better place to check first.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

gary you will get longer life and better fuel milage out of your engine if you add the zddp back to the oil but no one is going to keep there truck long enough to see the difference. you should get about 1,500,000 miles with dino cj4 oil, 1,750,000 with cj4 and zddp package and 2,000,000 miles on synthetic + zddp package . our early dodges that have at or over 1,000,000 miles on them will have the rest of the truck wore out so bad i do not think i will see 1,500,000 on one much less 2,000,000. looking at it from a practical stand point if you can not see the end result why spend the money. there may be an exception to this but i am not smart enough to figure it out , the oil drag reduces mpg the one on here that add's the stp actually reduces his mpg's going to 5w synthetic from 15w and adding the zddp back in will definitely improve mpg. amzoil or shell will have to supply us with the % increase in mpg we get from the reduced drag in our 5. 9's before we can do the math to see if savings is there. cummins might be a better place to check first.

ALL excellent points, that directly represent the vast majority of truck owners - one related point is that there may well be some cost savings IF the better lubing ZDDP oils extend the service intervals in a positive way - less oil changes = less cost and oil consumed.



ON the other hand, some users WILL see actual benefits of better lubes - my dad hauled cattle for many years, drove his own '59 Chevy 2 1/2 ton V8 equipped truck for well OVER a million miles. YUP - not all the same engine - went thru about 3 or 4 in that time/mileage, a Cummins Diesel like I have in my truck sure would have been a dandy feature back then, and MIGHT have made all those miles all on it's own with proper care and servicing...



As it was, and on an actual WORK truck that saw lots of varied terrain, both on and off road, the body and drivetrain was still quite decent and serviceable after all that usage - to the point that the GM dealership where he bought it and had it serviced, wanted to buy it back from him when he retired it, as an advertising item.



I come from much the same generation as far as carefully selecting items I buy, and the careful servicing I provide them with - I tend to go for the "long haul" in durability and care in what I buy - my current '02 may well be my last, at least I consider it to be so. And so, IF there are 2 products available for my selection in caring for my truck, and nearly or the same cost - why would I not buy the one I considered the "best" one for the application - oil, tires, filters. etc. ?



Thus, my small bit of irritation that the product *I* feel is best for lubrication for my truck has been removed from my access, not because of any specific need or limitation that applies to me or it - but rather, because later trucks unlike mine now require that specific product with whatever new quality limitations it contains, and now *I* am forced to accept and use it as well, in my own truck, whether I need or like it, or not...



Cheers!

 

[RBellah]

Lots of good information guys! Possibly a good article to add to TDR magazine on additves and oils. What was not mentioned are talked about was LUCAS additives... . only one comment on Lucas and he said he used it before he knew better not sure what he meant by that.

 

[Buffalo]

Some of the Lucas additives have been known to trap air in the fluids. The oil consistency turns to a creamy color & it is said that "air" is not a good lubricant. If you check on the (bobistheoilguy.com) website, they have a test of the Lucas product, in question, with photographic results.



I have a question for you guys that know more than I do. I have been using used oil analysis for the past four or five oil changes on my '03. I have been using Chevron Delo-400, CI-4+ & trying to extend oil drain intervals. I, also, use the best Fleetguard filters.



Originally, I was changing at 5000 mile intervals & started reading that longer intervals were able to be achieved without damage to the engine. I went to 6000 miles to 8000 miles to 9000 & the last change was a bit over 10,000. The UOA's come back OK with the comment, "NO PROBLEMS PRESENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SAMPLE. CONTINUE SAMPLING AT THE NORMAL INTERVAL.



I always change the oil when sampling. One of the things I have noticed is that, with fresh oil, the engine seems quieter. As if, there is better lubrication in the engine. Does the audible difference indicate that the old oil was worn out to the point that damage is being done? The comments from Caterpillar testing indicate that the oil is still good to go.



Any thoughts would be appreciated.



BTW, this thread is very interesting & quite civil considering the potential volatility of the subject at hand.



Thank you.



Joe F.

 

[amsoilman]

I have a question for you guys that know more than I do. I have been using used oil analysis for the past four or five oil changes on my '03. I have been using Chevron Delo-400, CI-4+ & trying to extend oil drain intervals. I, also, use the best Fleetguard filters.



Originally, I was changing at 5000 mile intervals & started reading that longer intervals were able to be achieved without damage to the engine. I went to 6000 miles to 8000 miles to 9000 & the last change was a bit over 10,000. The UOA's come back OK with the comment, "NO PROBLEMS PRESENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SAMPLE. CONTINUE SAMPLING AT THE NORMAL INTERVAL.



I always change the oil when sampling. One of the things I have noticed is that, with fresh oil, the engine seems quieter. As if, there is better lubrication in the engine. Does the audible difference indicate that the old oil was worn out to the point that damage is being done? The comments from Caterpillar testing indicate that the oil is still good to go.



Any thoughts would be appreciated.



BTW, this thread is very interesting & quite civil considering the potential volatility of the subject at hand.



Thank you.



Joe F.

Joe,

if you are getting good UOA's like you say, I would not worry about changing the oil out. Are you changing filters periodicly, and adding oil in between the oil analysis? If so then the added oil will change the outcome of the UOA.



If Catapiller is telling you the oil is good to go, then I would certainly continue your drain intervals until the report comes back in a negative manner, such as a Viscosity loss or increase, or contaminants become excessive. Just remember, the testing equipment for UOA can only see particals bigger than about 5 MICRON, and particles smaller than 5 MICRON is not going to do much damage to your engine, as the clearances within are smaller than 5 MICRON.



Wayne

 

[CKelley1]

buffalo on your 03 you can even extend your filter change out to 12,000 miles and still have a 12,000 miles safty factor but that only apply's to the 03-to 04. 5 and only to the stratapore filter

 

[Grizzly]

ANYWAY, as a return to the original issue of this thread, for years, I was guilty of adding (gasp!) STP to the oil in my vehicles, as well as many related and unrelated lube functions - yeah got laughed at - and -probably will again - but I always had great results with it, especially in older high mileage cars, in terms of greatly reduced smoking and oil consumption.









Gary, I too used STP in my old F250 Furd gasser because it used so much oil. I don't believe it did much good because I had to get the engine (390 cu in) rebuilt at 104K miles. Sometime in the mid 90's Consumer Reports published their findings on the chemical breakdown of the product, which concluded that it was nothing more then an oil thickener. After the article was published, the makers of STP and Consumer Reports went at it in court. Consumer Reports won and STP almost went out of business.



The following Consumer Reports article talks about their findings on 20 brands of conventional oil, a few brands of synthetic oil and oil additives such as STP an Slick 50 on New York City taxicabs. Worth reading.

 

[Buffalo]

Amsoilman & CKelly1,



Thanks for your replies.



The thing I'm concerned about is that the fresh oil seems to quiet the engine down, a bit. Seem like it's lubricating the engine better. I wonder if I would be better off reducing the amount of mileage between oil changes. I wonder if the noise equals exessive wear in the engine.



I'm not sure that I trust the local Caterpillar testing lab, now. This last UOA was substantially better in some areas with more miles on the oil. Something with their results seems wrong, to me.



Joe F.

 

[CKelley1]

trust the lab, you are hearing things that are not there. the more miles on a filter the better it filters most change the filter about the time it filters it's best one hot shot i know uses delo400 and pulls heavy his drain and filter change is 20,000 miles he used blackstone to set the interval in 03 has not tested since and had 800,000 on it the last time i was in it

 

[HBarlow]

Grizzly,

I read the Consumer Reports article you cited above. Good article. Interesting but not surprising.

I have always used a good quality brand name motor oil and no additives. I used Pennzoil on a gas 460 Ford, Shell Rotella on my '01 and '06 Dodges, and Premium Blue on the current one. Being a skeptic, I have long believed synthetics and oil additives are mostly snake oil.

I have used 10,000 mile oil change intervals on my three Dodges without any known negative results although I don't know and certainly cannot prove I am not causing accelerated wear. I have never had an oil sample done believing for my use, one owner/one truck, the money is better spent on fresh oil and a fresh Fleetguard filter than on testing.

I don't preach against sythetics, oil additives, or oil sampling any more than I expect anyone to preach to me about my choice of conventional motor oils and routine changes. Belief in motor oils is a religion to many.

 

[amsoilman]

Amsoilman & CKelly1,



Thanks for your replies.



The thing I'm concerned about is that the fresh oil seems to quiet the engine down, a bit. Seem like it's lubricating the engine better. I wonder if I would be better off reducing the amount of mileage between oil changes. I wonder if the noise equals exessive wear in the engine.



I'm not sure that I trust the local Caterpillar testing lab, now. This last UOA was substantially better in some areas with more miles on the oil. Something with their results seems wrong, to me.



Joe F.

Joe,

It doesn't take much oil to lubricate, but if your oil analysis from Cat showed the VISCOSITY somewhere between 12. 2 cSt and 16. 3 cSt @100 C. you are getting good lubricity, as VISCOSITY is the single most important property of oil. The figures I stated are for a 40 Grade oil.



Wayne

 

[Grizzly]

Harvey, I agree with you that with todays modern conventional oils, synthetics and additives are not needed and most honestly don't help today engines. One exception, the Consumer Reports article does say that synthetics help in extreme hot or cold temperatures. Many folks in Alaska and Northern Canada use synthetics in the winter months only. I don't believe folks in most of the lower 48 have to worry about extreme temperatures.



I also like the part about changing oil every 3000 miles is a big waste plus it adds to the nation's energy and oil-disposal problems.



I also agree with this part, "We don't recommend leaving any oil, synthetic or regular, in an engine for 12,000 miles, because accumulating contaminants - solids, acids, fuel, and water - could eventually harm the engine. What's more, stretching the oil-change interval may void the warranty on most new cars".

 

[AABEN]

Well I got my oil report from BLACKSTONE LAB. You ran this oil quite a bit longer than the last and your commins hardly noticed. WE don't thank you will a problen running your next oil-9. 000. Ben with wear as nice as yours;we don't thank that you need to run any additives.

 

[amsoilman]

I have read this "Consumers Report" on oils when it came out in 1996, but there have been many advances in oils since then, after all that report is some 13 years old, and many of the Engine Manufacturers are suggesting 7500 mile oil changes. The only Companies that want you to change oil 3,000/3 Months is the major oil Companies. They simply want your money!

 

[Oasis-3]

Oil in a can

Do you remember when oil came in a can, and you had to push a spout into the can. Well I bought an older home 3 years ago and it had about 3 cases of this old oil. I have been using it in my wifes car for the last 3 years and it runs much better with this old oil, the motor is much more quiet. I may have to sale the car when the oil runs out lol



This oil is from the late 60's I think

Cliff

 

[Grizzly]

Do you remember when oil came in a can, and you had to push a spout into the can. Well I bought an older home 3 years ago and it had about 3 cases of this old oil. I have been using it in my wifes car for the last 3 years and it runs much better with this old oil, the motor is much more quiet. I may have to sale the car when the oil runs out lol



This oil is from the late 60's I think

Cliff

Interesting, what brand and weight of oil is it. Modern oils are suppose to be getting better. You may have proved that theory wrong.