[Chrysler300] Zinc in Motor Oil

["Rich Barber" <c300@xxxxxxx>]

One way to forward that information is to highlight and copy it as shown
below.  Or make a tiny URL like this:  http://tinyurl.com/yw6wdb  This is
done at tinyurl.com and works easily to condense long URL's such as are
found at e-Bay.  Although it is sent as plain text, our server generally
converts the link to a clickable link.  Our server does not allow any
attachments and will strip them before sending the message to the faithful.

I read the commentary and agree that old wives' or old mechanics' tales are
hard to prove or disprove and very hard to kill.  However, we have seen the
General totally wrong at the top of their voice as legal dep't approved
communications are set forth to cover the corporate posterior.  So, for my
cat-less C-300, I believe I'll look for a high zinc oil and change it
frequently as it is not set up to redigest its crankcase emissions of water
vapor, blowby and otherwise noxious fumes.  My 2.2 turbo Chrysler T&C
convertible deserves turbo-grade oil and my 2005 Hemi Durango will get
whatever the manual dictates.

C-300'ly,
Rich Barber

OK, first off, yea, i'm sceptical too but this came from a reputable source
and is claimed to be a customer service bulletin put out by GM to address
some oil "myths". Give it a read and see what you think. 

Mark 


Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. Here are
some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the
fiction behind these myths.

The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of
truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in
Titusville, Pennsylvania.
A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were
those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal
refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining
conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude
or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude
can be made into good engine oil.

Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the
unfamiliar are somehow "bad."

The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent
engine oils are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War
II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil
for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as "heavy-duty" oil.

Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines
were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn
out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely
high oil consumption and horrendous oil consumption. After a thorough purge
by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible
consequence.
If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war,
preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place,
this myth never would have started. Amazingly, there are still a few people
today, 60 years later, who believe that they need to use non-detergent oil
in their older cars. Apparently, it takes many years for an oil myth to die.

The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in
will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an
aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact
is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands
of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put
this one to rest.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Albert Vannice
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:41 AM
To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Chrysler300] FW: *** SPAM ***Emailing: Corvette Forum - View
Single Post - What's ThisCrud I Hear Zinc in Motor Oil

Hi Everyone,
    I'll try one more approach -- if this does not get you the article,
either go to forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1946496 and look at
item #20, or just 
Google "Bob Olree" and get the same message from several sources.  Sorry
about the confusion.
Al

________________________________

From: bav1140 [mailto:bav1140@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sat 3/29/2008 9:47 AM
To: Albert Vannice
Subject: *** SPAM ***Emailing: Corvette Forum - View Single Post - What's
ThisCrud I Hear Zinc in Motor Oil




The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:

Corvette Forum - View Single Post - What's This Crud I Hear Zinc in Motor
Oil


Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.  Check your e-mail
security settings to determine how attachments are handled.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------------------

To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For list server instructions, go to
http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm

For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/Yahoo! Groups
Links







------------------------------------

To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm

For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:Chrysler300-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    mailto:Chrysler300-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/