An oil test that shows ZDDPlus may not help - Richard C, please look

[ijames]

Over on www.speedtalk.com one poster has been doing a lot of oil testing using a machine that measures the film strength of oils - in other words how much pressure a film can stand before allowing metal-to-metal contact. You can search for his previous 3 or 4 threads to see his procedure and earlier results, but in the latest he added Zddplus and the Edelbrock Zinc Additive to three different oils he had already tested, and in all cases the additive lowered the film strength by 20-40%! Here's the link: http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31791&p=378842#p378842 Sure makes me go "hmmm". Richard, I know you did a lot of testing while developing ZDDPlus; what do you think of his method and results?

 

[longball]

very interesting read. I've never used a zinc additive in 20+ of owning my GN. I never had any motor problems
remotely related to oil or lack of zinc. Coincidence? Perhaps. While I understand that Richard Clark is a man of
unquestionable integrity, I would expect that he would defend a product he is selling. I think it would be hard
for him to give a totally unbiased opinion.

While I'm not sure if extra zinc is needed or not, I change my oil quite frequently, perhaps that is why I have not
had any oil or zinc related problems with any of my motors.

 

[EVIL]

So what does this mean? That zinc was never needed in oil before? I leaves more questions than answers.

D

 

[longball]

it seems probable that some zinc was needed in the past. I am thinking that zinc is still useful but with the modern chemistry
of today's oils - less zinc in needed than most people realize.

 

[Nick Micale]

[quote="longball, post: 3046291, member: 30391"..
remotely related to oil or lack of zinc. Coincidence? Perhaps. While I understand that Richard Clark is a man of
unquestionable integrity, I would expect that he would defend a product he is selling. I think it would be hard
for him to give a totally unbiased opinion......[/quote]

You may not be a stupid person, but you statement certainly is.

What give you the right to accuse someone of not being totally unbiased?

This is the type of crap that has caused more than one very qualified person to never post on this board again.

You are a self-proclaimed expert since your GN has never had a issue because of lack of zinc? Well, we have seen lots of issues, and that is the main reason behind ZDDP.

If I was Richard, I would not respond to a "Circus" test posted on the internet and has been used for many years to promote a product while showing other products are no good, or your inane comments.

 

[azbob]

If you would take the time and read the full information that Richard produced to explain the ZDDP concept, you would not have either made the statements or made yourself look like a fool.

 

[cruzn57]

I have a good friend, who is a chemist with shell oil co,
in speaking with him about oil and zinc, and other additives, ( this was yr or two ago)
its my understanding that zinc attaches its self to metal, creating a thin surface
that does not allow rapid wearing, its like a film that lets lifter glide over the cam, without
wearing prematurely.
old oils have zinc and other additives in them to lubricate high wear areas,
new oils have everything removed for polution compliance.
ZDDP , along with other products have increased amounts of zinc and other chemicals
to prevent premature wear.
I'm no expert, just a concerned buick owner.

BUT, I did stay at a Holiday Inn express once!!!!

 

[turbo nasty]

ZDDP is still in oils...repeat .....still in oil that you buy now. Its just reduced and not enough for good protection over the oils use. Hence why zddplus is here, its a shot in teh current oils arm if you will.

now the reason is 2 fold........one is most all stuff is roller now from the factory.

And the other is the PCV placing oil vapor in the intake tract and the higher ZDDP oils was not getting a EPA wanted longer cat life/cats ability do its job longer.

Bottom line is whether you trust Mr. Clark or not and his product. Ever met him? If you have the answer is a BIG YES.

 

[CGASTON]

[quote="longball, post: 3046291, member: 30391"..
remotely related to oil or lack of zinc. Coincidence? Perhaps. While I understand that Richard Clark is a man of
unquestionable integrity, I would expect that he would defend a product he is selling. I think it would be hard
for him to give a totally unbiased opinion......

You may not be a stupid person, but you statement certainly is.

What give you the right to accuse someone of not being totally unbiased?

This is the type of crap that has caused more than one very qualified person to never post on this board again.

You are a self-proclaimed expert since your GN has never had a issue because of lack of zinc? Well, we have seen lots of issues, and that is the main reason behind ZDDP.

If I was Richard, I would not respond to a "Circus" test posted on the internet and has been used for many years to promote a product while showing other products are no good, or your inane comments. [/quote]

Nicely said!!!

 

[longball]

[quote="You are a self-proclaimed expert since your GN has never had a issue because of lack of zinc? [/quote]

Nick, I'm not seeing where in my post that I claimed that I was an expert. I did mention what has happened to my car, as many people do. My intention was not to upset or insult people.
If someone feels that way, I do apologize.

 

[Nick Micale]

... My intention was not to upset or insult people.
If someone feels that way, I do apologize.

Thank you for being a man clearing the air.

I was upset because, like I mentioned, it was taken as a "slam" to Richard who is a pillar of credibility in this community.

Opinions are always welcome, as long as they are stated as such.

Statements from a company or an ad is not always in our best interest, or may not even fit the condition or applications we encounter.

 

[novaderrik]

Nick, I'm not seeing where in my post that I claimed that I was an expert. I did mention what has happened to my car, as many people do. My intention was not to upset or insult people.
If someone feels that way, I do apologize.

your experience is wrong. it is different than the party line that new oils kill old engines, and thus is invalid.

i would like to see some actual stats on how many stock unopened engines have actually had problems related to the new oils, and how well those cars that did have problems were maintained and how they were driven.. i do know that my experience in parting out and scrapping cars over the years tells me that cams in stock engines went flat using the "good" oils that were out 20 years ago- i tore apart many, many engines from many different engine families from every domestic manufacturer and ranging from the 60's to the mid 80's, and a good percentage of them had flat cams in the late 80's and early 90's but still ran good when we tore them apart.

once you get into aftermarket stuff- cams with more lift and faster ramps that require higher spring pressures- then you are getting into a different area than stock applications and the failure rate of cams has always been higher than stock stuff. this is where the new off the shelf oil formulations probably come up short and the extra additives in products like ZDDP help to lower the failure rate- but i wonder by how much?

 

[A2000RICH]

Over on www.speedtalk.com one poster has been doing a lot of oil testing using a machine that measures the film strength of oils - in other words how much pressure a film can stand before allowing metal-to-metal contact. You can search for his previous 3 or 4 threads to see his procedure and earlier results, but in the latest he added Zddplus and the Edelbrock Zinc Additive to three different oils he had already tested, and in all cases the additive lowered the film strength by 20-40%! Here's the link: http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31791&p=378842#p378842 Sure makes me go "hmmm". Richard, I know you did a lot of testing while developing ZDDPlus; what do you think of his method and results?

someone mentioned this thread and i will surely post a thorough response to it early next week. The DNA lab has me buried most of the time and it appears a quite a few folks plan to stop by the shop this weekend so i am really squeezed for time. I will remind everyone that "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing" and this author has demonstrated that he has just enough to embarass himself. Its a shame for the mag that they didn't run this by a couple real tribologists before printing this. While his actual test results may be correct his methodology is seriously flawed. That machine is not an internal combustion engine and until I can find time to respond with detail and facts I will leave it at that. His conclusion is akin to someone comparing the holding power of nails against screws and using only a hammer to insert them not realizing that a screwdriver works differently than a hammer. Under such conditions one might come to the conclusion that nails hold better than threaded fasteners and for those test conditions he would probably be correct.

 

[Permagrin]

someone mentioned this thread and i will surely post a thorough response to it early next week DNA lab has me buried most of the time and it appears a quite a few folks plan to stop by the shop this weekend so i am really squeezed for time i will remind everyone that "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing" and this author has demonstrated that he has just enough knowhow to embarass himself its a shame for the mag that they didtn't run this by a couple real tribologists before printing this while his actual test results may be correct his methodology is seriously flawed that machine is not an internal combustion engine and until I can find time to respond with detail and facts I will leave it at that his conclusion is akin to someone comparing the holding power of nails against screws and using only a hammer to insert them not realizing that a screwdriver works differently than a hammer under such conditions one might come to the conclusion that nails hold better than threaded fasteners and for those test conditions he would probably be correct

Exactly, invalidates any conclusions drawn.

 

[Nick Micale]

your experience is wrong. it is different than the party line that new oils kill old engines, and thus is invalid....................................?

Your statement and post has me confused, but I agree "new oils kill old engines" is not a valid statement.

Our original engines are over 25 years old and have used "old" oil for most of its life. Using a new oil now in an original engine should not show any marked change in internal wear or actually shorten the life of any parts.

The "scare" and issues came about when rebuilt engines, most for increased performance, were found to have durability issues between 5K-25K miles of use.

The V-6 engine technology and most replacement parts are still 25+ years old, and the new oils are not capable of proper break-in and wear-in since the modern oils do not have the old additives needed for proper break-in.

Do you think it is possible that the factory-fill oil in a new vehicle is the same as you buy off the shelf, or maybe it has specific additives for break-in?

Some owners have stated "use a roller cam/lifters" to solve your problems. With increased valve spring pressures and higher RPM, these rollers need the added protection of "old" oils as much, if not more than a flat tappet cam.

Like Richard stated, this "test machine" has been around at fairs and shows for longer than most owners have been alive, and is a BS demonstration to sell a specific product.

Richard's product is NOT a "snake oil" as MANY major companies are now producing special oils for engine break-in, high performance engines, forced induction engines and other specific applications, all of which feature specific additives for wear protection and durability.

My final comment, I would rather trust Richard's work and research before the over-paid ad guys and tech lines from the oil companies. Who do you thing has our cars best interest at heart rather than $$$$?

 

[TurboDave]

As Richard and Nick have pointed out, that stupid machine they use in those demos has been around for decades, and proves absolutely nothing. There are two wear surfaces perpendicular to each other and represent absolutely no moving part in and internal combustion engine.
It's the same bogus machine that Slick 50 used in their demos. And we all know what the courts did to slick 50. Or at least us old timers remember!!
It is the most useless piece of apperatus used to demonstrate flawed principles, but still finds interested audiences about every new generation or so.

 

[Jerryl]

Well, I am going to add my $0.02

I did not read the article in the link because I did not feel like wasting my time.
I have never met Richard, but it is my belief that he has no hidden agenda. Really, why would he need one?
Those who lack understanding in Design Of Experiment (Refering to the article) will typically get results that defy their selfimposed/skewed logic, which only leads to more questions.

Richard Clark has proven to be very knowedgeable and very giving to this community and his training pushes him to search/publish the truth/facts. Whether the truth are accepted or rejected, the TRUTH still sets people free!

 

[SHADOWII]

I was going to add my $.02 but I needed it for that last quart of oil in my honda before it went belly-up!

 

[SGRIM]

your experience is wrong. it is different than the party line that new oils kill old engines, and thus is invalid.

i would like to see some actual stats on how many stock unopened engines have actually had problems related to the new oils, and how well those cars that did have problems were maintained and how they were driven.. i do know that my experience in parting out and scrapping cars over the years tells me that cams in stock engines went flat using the "good" oils that were out 20 years ago- i tore apart many, many engines from many different engine families from every domestic manufacturer and ranging from the 60's to the mid 80's, and a good percentage of them had flat cams in the late 80's and early 90's but still ran good when we tore them apart.

once you get into aftermarket stuff- cams with more lift and faster ramps that require higher spring pressures- then you are getting into a different area than stock applications and the failure rate of cams has always been higher than stock stuff. this is where the new off the shelf oil formulations probably come up short and the extra additives in products like ZDDP help to lower the failure rate- but i wonder by how much?

Questioning Mr. Clark now Derrik? You have fallen off a wagon

You know what, there isn't but a very very very select few people I would do this for but I would stand behind ANYTHING Mr. Clark says! Not saying anyone is perfect....

If anyone would simply take the time to look at the INTENSE research Mr. Clark has had done there wouldn't be a question in your mind about the validity of his claims.... There are very few men left in the world like Mr. Richard Clark... What he does for this community is immeasurable.... I am not asking you to take my word for it, simply take the time to read and learn what his results are before throwing your 2 cents in... He is not some guy working in a shed in the back yard... If you had the slightest clue has to how precise on things Mr. Clark is you wouldn't have any reservations about the validity of any claim he stands behind.... He is a pioneer in many fields, Buicks are simply his hobby... I think he gives back about everything ZDDP makes, I mean I know it sounds to good to be true but you couldn't ask for ANYTHING more from a man IMO.....

I hope he pens an autobiography one day myself.... I have spent hours with the man and he never ceases to amaze me with his knowledge and expeirnce on a such a vast number of topics....

 

[ijames]

Well, now that everyone has had a chance to post their emotional reactions, maybe calm can prevail and science can proceed. I didn't post this to stir stuff up; anyone who knows me knows that I care about the science (and some would say little else, I've been accused of writing the longest and most boring posts on tb ). I know that Richard and his people have done a lot of research on this, I have read his website end to end at least twice and talked with Richard about oils more than once. As a Buick owner and PhD chemist (but not a material scientist or tribologist) I have a healthy curiosity and some general knowledge about this subject, and since these results seemed to me to have been obtained in a careful systematic way that I couldn't easily refute, and since they show such a surprising drop in film strength when extra ZDDP is added to the current SN oils I wanted to make sure Richard and others saw the post and had a chance to think about it and respond to the science. I have read the postings on speedtalk, where the methodology is presented, and I think it needs to be taken seriously. First, this is not that silly hand crank snake oil seller, this is a machine used in an ASTM test that applies the load slowly and systematically to a wear surface that is carefully prepared fresh for each test. The ASTM procedure was followed at first and many repetitions performed until the poster was convinced that he could reproducibly generate accurate results. He then tested many oils, performing several repetitions in each case to improve his accuracy, and repeated tests of oils over time to make sure that no systematic drift was ocurring. He did decide to use a higher oil temperature than the test specifies, to better represent an operating engine and not a cold start in his opinion. This did not change his relative rankings of about 30 different oils that he tested both ways but it does open him to the criticism of "making up his own test". He is not selling anything and doesn't work for any oil company, he just wanted to know for himself. Here are links to his earlier test reports: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30483, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30596, and http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31406 (hope this come through ok). As part of the discussion in those posts I and a couple of others asked about testing ZDDPlus or another additive to see what effect it had, and the link I posted first is the result of that test.

I assumed that there would be an initial wave of reactions but I really hope that we are now past that and that people will actually read those postings and think about the testing methodology and the science involved. It's not about popularity, it's about designing experiements and collecting data to confirm or refute hypotheses and doing it in a way that controls all the pertinent variables so that the experiments can be replicated and the data confirmed. If the speedtalk poster's methodology is flawed it will come out, if not, maybe current oils have additive packages that have changed composition so that they are no longer helped by additions of ZDDP and we need to know that. Or something else, but again, we need to know.