The individual who started the thread on the other forum is no stranger to Wings, but he's only just arrived here on this board,,, as in 2-3 days ago.
Incorrect!He's not here in THIS forum. (A case of mistaken identity on my part)
I do see 4 weeks / 229 posts on ZDDP use in Goldwings on 'another board'.
I'd post a link to the thread so all who are interested could "review", but,,,
If you think the information is valuable to our members, cut / copy the information from where ever it is and Post it on here, after all we are here for a reason, no harm by sharing the information on here, I don't have time to be fishing through the many other boards out there.Originally Posted by Scotrod
The individual who started the thread on the other forum is no stranger to Wings, but he's only just arrived here on this board,,, as in 2-3 days ago.
Incorrect!
Successful people build each other up. They motivate, inspire and push each other. Unsuccessful people just hate, blame and complain.
I do have some interesting tidbits I ran across last night, with each as relevant / 'factual' as what one might find in a forum or from a 'website where you can buy our stuff'!!! LOL!If you think the information is valuable to our members, cut / copy the information from where ever it is and Post it on here, after all we are here for a reason, no harm by sharing the information on here, I don't have time to be fishing through the many other boards out there.
I'll dig some up later this evening,,,
If one is looking for a "boat load" of information about oil additives and the one in question on this thread...Type in the words "motor oil additives comparsion on Bing or other search engines and "wow"...After reading these various threads, I would suppose one can make their own choices...One that seemed to have a great amount of info is Ask Classic Cars.com....Most testers agree that this product is good for the break in period on classic car engines, but the regular use of ZDDP or whatever it is called is already in, to some degree, most quality oils sold now...It said to check the label on additives to the oil you are buying and then make your decision.....To each his own as they say, but not for me....
OK Folks, I have a Ural-T and it has an old design engine. One of the things the ZDDP is for flat tappet engines. When I first got my Ural I checked many oils for the higher amount of ZDDP which some people think benefits the Ural. Some of the classic car people also see a need for it. Some modern current oils may have some, but not enough. I buy an oil with a higher content of ZDDP There are companies that make higher content of ZDDP in their oil for these specific needs. Hope this makes sense, I'm tired.cueman
Poisoning a Catalytic Converter w/ZDDP:I do have some interesting tidbits I ran across last night, with each as relevant / 'factual' as what one might find in a forum or from a 'website where you can buy our stuff'!!! LOL!
I'll dig some up later this evening,,,
phosphorous and zinc can poison the catalyst. Clog is a term used incorrectly.
You need to understand heterogeneous catalysis first - chemical reactions that are facilitated by some kind of active surface (thus heterogeneous, as opposed to homogeneous where there is some kind of other propagation method for driving the reaction). So there are LOTS of surface sites that could possibly be used to catalyze a chemical reaction. Different sites may have differing accessibility, due to porosity and placement of the active component. Typically the active component, like a precious metal in a catalytic converter is dispersed and "supported" on a "support", like the corderite honeycomb inside the converter.
So you have these sites, some are inside pores of the support, some are on top. How well the reaction occurs depends upon how active the catalyst is, and how easy it is for compounds you are reacting to reach the catalytic sites.
So you can do two things - (1) chemically poison sites, through compounds that create non-catalytic versions of the active metal. Things like sulfides of platinum. Chemicals like sulfur and phosphorous are good at poisoning catalytic sites. Or, you can do (2) clog or cover the sites that are present so that they are no longer accessible for reaction. This could be due to a lot of oil, soot or other things inside the converter.
#1 is not reversible unless you can reduce the catalyst to bare metal at VERY high heat in hydrogen.
#2 some people claim to be able to fix to some extent by either washing with soap (degrease) or burning some compound (like lacquer thinner) that makes the car spit out lots of HCs, heat up the converter and try to burn it off. Both are risky because additional chemicals can create other non-active variants of the precious metals, like chlorides and phosphates, and excess temperature can either oxidize or sinter the metals, as well as crack the support, causing its efficacy to be poor.
Metallic adds in oils, if the oil is burned and sent through, can plug and coat catalyst sites and pores where active sites ma be present. Just like soot or hydrocarbons. But generally the concern is about poisoning.
You only theoretically need x catalyst to do the cleanup of a three-way converter. However there is an assumption of burned oil, life degradation, growth and agglomeration of catalyst particles, etc., so the converter is loaded with x+y amount of catalyst so that it will perform through warranty. THis is part of the reason why EPA/CARB approved converters cost more, since they have more metal... and why the $50 converters from mineke barely allow you to pass when they are brand new (poorly made catalyst, with minimal loaded content into the converter).
Too much?
Not enough?
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) 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.
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.
Special thanks to GM's Techlink
- Thanks to Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group
Response from the folks selling you ZDDP in red:
Case 3 – Starburst Oil Myth
“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) 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 compatibility 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.”
We have never been able to find the results of these tests on older engines. We would need to study those reports
to see exactly which engine types and cam and cam follower types were involved. The fact is all test Sequences
we have studied use non-performance engines with low spring-pressures, indeed in the Sequence IIIG test, the
static lifter load is 350 pounds.2 Many high-performance engines have as much as 500 pounds or more of lifter foot
pressure. Referring to the Bennet data, this would indicate that, in order to keep from scuffing,
a ZDDP level of .065% minimum would need to be ensured.
Case 3 – Starburst Oil Myth continued…
“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.
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.)”
We wish that it were true that all modern oils contained 0.08% phosphorus from ZDDP. Our recent tests of two
major name brand oils bearing the SM grade contain <0.06% phosphorus, therefore cannot contain even that much
ZDDP.
We know there are technologies other than ZDDP which can function as effective EP anti-wear agents for some
engine designs, as proven with newer engines with roller cam followers. The most recent SM formulations in
particular have shown a move to boron-based EP additives, with a concurrent further lowering in some oils to
<0.06% phosphorus. We have been testing virgin oils on an ongoing basis, and most quality oils in early 2007
have had a phosphorus level in the 0.05% to 0.08% range. We recently tested two new oils: Mobil 1 Extended
Performance SM 10W-30 and Valvoline Premium SM 10W-30 oil. We had the oils tested for both zinc and
phosphorus following the ASTM AA and D-4951 methods respectively. The results showed <0.06% phosphorus in
either oil. While this is good news for the owners of new cars with catalytic converters, it does mean that in order to
retain the SM certification they both claim, there has to be an EP additive different than ZDDP incorporated into
both formulas.
Case 3 – Starburst Oil Myth continued…
“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.”
Our study of the ASTM test Sequences IIIE, IIIF, IIIG, IVA and VE required to achieve certification reveal that
NONE were developed using high-performance engines. Indeed, these tests were developed using relatively lowperformance
engines intended to model average current and emerging vehicle engine wear characteristics. This
makes absolute sense considering the purpose of the oil specifications is to provide a standard set of performance
criteria for oil to be used in new over-the-road automobiles and trucks. The standards are not intended to infer any
degree of backwards compatibility with older or specialty engines.
In one statement Olree, while investigating the amount of ZDDP needed to protect engines, stated: “Arguing that
modern oils should pass tests developed 25 years ago to protect engines built 30 years ago is a rather useless
exercise.”3 Since he is studying the situation from the perspective of designing the lubrication for the next
generation of motors, we see his perspective for making such a statement. In doing so, he is acknowledging that
the test is not specifically designed to quantify an oil’s performance with older engines. Unfortunately, “those”
engines are the ones we enthusiasts run and care about.
It is our belief that there is no overt movement in the oil industry to create new oils that are bad for older engines as
some conspiracy theorists may speculate. There certainly IS a movement in the oil industry to create new oils
which are tailored to the specifications and requirements primarily of newer cars, and secondarily of older vehicles.
This does not mean they are concerned at all with 30-year-old muscle cars. To the automotive industry an OLD
car is 10 years old. The cars we care about are invisible to the OEM industry. While we have great faith in the
engineering behind the new oils, we also notice that backwards compatibility with 100% of old engines is not on the
product spec sheet. The oil manufacturers obviously know of the importance of ZDDP to older flat-tappet engines,
as many of them are steering owners of these engines toward their ZDDP-formulated diesel oil line, showing they
acknowledge the need for ZDDP in these engines. Unfortunately, the characteristics and available viscosity ranges
of diesel oil may not be suitable for our engines.
As Bob Olree knows better than we do, the amount of investment and research required to define, specify and
perfect a set of tests and resulting standards is huge, and off-the-cuff recommendations like one sees in
advertisements for oil supplements, are poorly thought out and ill-advised. Our position on the right oil and additive
package to use is simple: an individual should be using the oil specified at the time of manufacture of the specific
vehicle. Period. An engine is a fantastically complex and well thought-out machine, and we believe almost all oil
additives are simply get rich schemes, impose unnecessary cost, and are unneeded at best, dangerous at worst.
Our conclusion and current recommendation is to augment one of the new and superior base stock modern oils
of the correct viscosity with additional ZDDP in order to bring the oil’s EP characteristics to that for which the engine
was designed. We know from years of oil testing, ZDDP is compatible with all base stocks and other additive
packages, including the newer Boron EP additives. So, there is no risk and much potential benefit in adding it to
achieve 0.12% phosphorus, a level similar to that formulated into SF or SG oils.
Front page of the ZDDP+ website:
ZDDPlus in Action
The sliding cam-to-cam-follower interface in a non-roller lifter engine requires a special anti-wear additive, which has historically been ZDDP. After 70+ years of positive protection afforded by ZDDP, emission system changes are forcing a reduction in the amount of ZDDP in motor oils, leaving your classic or performance car at risk of premature cam and lifter wear. When a single 4 oz bottle of ZDDPlus™ is added to a normal 5-quart oil change, you will restore the proper amount of ZDDP that was found in into pre-1996 oils. Using ZDDPlus™ affords you total control over the characteristics of the oil in the engine by allowing you to use the full 5 quarts of high-grade automotive oil of your choice.
“We use ZPlus on all of our Flat Tappet built motors.”
– Ron Hutter
Hutter Race Engines
ZDDPlus is the best insurance to protect your classic or high-performance flat-tappet engine!”
— “Big Daddy” Don Garlits
NHRA’s #1 Drag Racer of All Time
Interesting info, but does all this technical BS and etc.etc. make any references to motorcycle oils and their applications...I did not see any as it appears to pertain to car engines only...As I said earlier, if one wants to use the stuff fine, as it will probably not hurt anything, but I still see no clear evidence that it does any real good and any long term wear/tear reduction is almost insignificant....Good post and interesting and informative reading, but I'm not convinced and will continue to use Honda Pro oil and change it every 3 to 4 thousand miles......with no "additives" except what is the oil can itself.......
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote