Chicken Little strikes again

[TheOldHokie]

This is a new post in reference to the previous one on zinc levels in oil. I decided to start new to reduce the number of responses cluttering up the thread. I'll use Stewart's response as the new starting point.

(quoted from post at 00:10:57 01/20/11) I've got an older BMW motorcycle with the air cooled boxer engine, and that is a real pain to find oil for. According to BMW, only API grade SF or SJ oil can be used. I can buy the BMW brand oil at about $8/quart (the filter is about $30), or I search around. When API started changing things around, they claimed that the SM rating met all prior oil ratings; but BMW maintained that you still had to use SF or SJ. It makes for a lot of confusion.

If I recall correctly, it was a zinc issue. The wet clutch required a higher sheer strength or something, and the tappets liked the particular additives found in SF and SJ rated oil.

I guess some older engines were just designed with very specific lubricants in mind.

There is indeed an abundance of confusion and misinformation. The Chicken Littles of the world latch on to a small piece of "real" information and the next thing you know the sky is falling. A big problem is that most of us are not engineers with any real understanding of the issues and that is compounded by the fact that we don't have the actual API specification to read leaving us reliant on somebody's description and interpretation (not that we would likely understand it even if we did have it). I did a little more research and learned a few new things not the least of which is that some of the things I had "learned" in the past were wrong. I started out looking for info on actual levels in current products and found this nice table detailing the levels in most if not all of the Mobil 1 product family. I realize it is only Mobil products but it had some very revealing information in it - too bad other manufactureres ae not so forthcoming:

[u:4787cde422][b:4787cde422]Mobil 1 Product Guide[/b:4787cde422][/u:4787cde422]

I immediately noticed an anomaly based on what I thought I "knew" from my previous reading onthe subject. A number of the oils that are licenesed SM products have zinc and posphorus levels higher then the new 600/800 PPM limit. For example Mobil 1 SAE 0W40 is a a SM licensed product and has zinc/phosporous levels of 1100/1000 PPM respectively. How can that be? The answer was found in this tech bulletin from Amsoil - the reduced SM limit only applies to specific viscosity grades:

[u:4787cde422][b:4787cde422]Amsoil TSB MO-2007-08-08. 1[/b:4787cde422][/u:4787cde422]

Further research turned up Amsoil TSB MO-2006-10-06 that provided even more background information. The empahsis was added by me.

[u:4787cde422][i:4787cde422][b:4787cde422]During the development of API SM/ILSAC GF-4 the antiwear requirements of flat tappets were given particular consideration by the engine manufacturers and by the oil industry.[/b:4787cde422][/i:4787cde422][/u:4787cde422] Engines with flat tappets were used to qualify API SM/ILSAC GF-4 oils. The anti-wear requirements of these tests are severe. In one case where the same Sequence IVA engine test was used for previous higher zinc and phosphorus oils, the average camshaft wear limits were reduced, allowing only 90u max wear for API SM/ILSAC GF-4 oils compared to the former 120u max wear limits. The results showed that API SM/ILSAC GF-4 oils protect factory designed flat tappet/camshaft engines just as well as previous higher phosphorus API SL/ILSAC GF-3 oils. If the engine is new, rebuilt or is modified from stock with high-pressure valve springs, proper precautions should be taken to insure long camshaft life. These recommendations apply regardless of the lower zinc and phosphorus associated with API SM/ILSAC GF-4 specifications.

High-performance modified engines benefit from oils with superior film strength and anti-wear properties. The flat tappet/camshaft lobe interface is the one area in an engine that has extreme contact load. That load increases significantly where non-stock, high-pressure valve springs are used. The use of properly formulated engine oils for this application will help reduce wear and extend the flat tappet/camshaft life. [i:4787cde422][b:4787cde422][u:4787cde422]There are many more ways to achieve good anti-wear performance than just using zinc and phosphorus compounds alone. Zinc and phosphorus are widely used because they are the most cost effective solutions to achieve anti-wear properties[/u:4787cde422][/b:4787cde422][/i:4787cde422].

Bottom line - unless you are building racing engines it's not likely an isue for you. And unless you do a lot of research you are not going to know what the zinc and phosphorus levels are in an off the shelf oil unless you have read and understand the new requirements and you get detailed product data from the manufacturer. If you are driving a Mercedes or BMW and using their SAE 0W40 recommendation the Z/Ph levels are likely way up there - probably not a coincidence. And don't forget - if you have a diesel the diesel motor oil standards are different from the gasoline motor oil standards. Probably a reason for that as well....

TOH

 

[JMOR]

(quoted from post at 09:31:33 01/20/11) This is a new post in reference to the previous one on zinc levels in oil. I decided to start new to reduce the number of responses cluttering up the thread. I'll use Stewart's response as the new starting point.

(quoted from post at 00:10:57 01/20/11) I've got an older BMW motorcycle with the air cooled boxer engine, and that is a real pain to find oil for. According to BMW, only API grade SF or SJ oil can be used. I can buy the BMW brand oil at about $8/quart (the filter is about $30), or I search around. When API started changing things around, they claimed that the SM rating met all prior oil ratings; but BMW maintained that you still had to use SF or SJ. It makes for a lot of confusion.

If I recall correctly, it was a zinc issue. The wet clutch required a higher sheer strength or something, and the tappets liked the particular additives found in SF and SJ rated oil.

I guess some older engines were just designed with very specific lubricants in mind.

There is indeed an abundance of confusion and misinformation. The Chicken Littles of the world latch on to a small piece of "real" information and the next thing you know the sky is falling. A big problem is that most of us are not engineers with any real understanding of the issues and that is compounded by the fact that we don't have the actual API specification to read leaving us reliant on somebody's description and interpretation (not that we would likely understand it even if we did have it). I did a little more research and learned a few new things not the least of which is that some of the things I had "learned" in the past were wrong. I started out looking for info on actual levels in current products and found this nice table detailing the levels in most if not all of the Mobil 1 product family. I realize it is only Mobil products but it had some very revealing information in it - too bad other manufactureres ae not so forthcoming:

[u:ab027360c0][b:ab027360c0]Mobil 1 Product Guide[/b:ab027360c0][/u:ab027360c0]

I immediately noticed an anomaly based on what I thought I "knew" from my previous reading onthe subject. A number of the oils that are licenesed SM products have zinc and posphorus levels higher then the new 600/800 PPM limit. For example Mobil 1 SAE 0W40 is a a SM licensed product and has zinc/phosporous levels of 1100/1000 PPM respectively. How can that be? The answer was found in this tech bulletin from Amsoil - the reduced SM limit only applies to specific viscosity grades:

[u:ab027360c0][b:ab027360c0]Amsoil TSB MO-2007-08-08. 1[/b:ab027360c0][/u:ab027360c0]

Further research turned up Amsoil TSB MO-2006-10-06 that provided even more background information. The empahsis was added by me.

[u:ab027360c0][i:ab027360c0][b:ab027360c0]During the development of API SM/ILSAC GF-4 the antiwear requirements of flat tappets were given particular consideration by the engine manufacturers and by the oil industry.[/b:ab027360c0][/i:ab027360c0][/u:ab027360c0] Engines with flat tappets were used to qualify API SM/ILSAC GF-4 oils. The anti-wear requirements of these tests are severe. In one case where the same Sequence IVA engine test was used for previous higher zinc and phosphorus oils, the average camshaft wear limits were reduced, allowing only 90u max wear for API SM/ILSAC GF-4 oils compared to the former 120u max wear limits. The results showed that API SM/ILSAC GF-4 oils protect factory designed flat tappet/camshaft engines just as well as previous higher phosphorus API SL/ILSAC GF-3 oils. If the engine is new, rebuilt or is modified from stock with high-pressure valve springs, proper precautions should be taken to insure long camshaft life. These recommendations apply regardless of the lower zinc and phosphorus associated with API SM/ILSAC GF-4 specifications.

High-performance modified engines benefit from oils with superior film strength and anti-wear properties. The flat tappet/camshaft lobe interface is the one area in an engine that has extreme contact load. That load increases significantly where non-stock, high-pressure valve springs are used. The use of properly formulated engine oils for this application will help reduce wear and extend the flat tappet/camshaft life. [i:ab027360c0][b:ab027360c0][u:ab027360c0]There are many more ways to achieve good anti-wear performance than just using zinc and phosphorus compounds alone. Zinc and phosphorus are widely used because they are the most cost effective solutions to achieve anti-wear properties[/u:ab027360c0][/b:ab027360c0][/i:ab027360c0].

Bottom line - unless you are building racing engines it's not likely an isue for you. And unless you do a lot of research you are not going to know what the zinc and phosphorus levels are in an off the shelf oil unless you have read and understand the new requirements and you get detailed product data from the manufacturer. If you are driving a Mercedes or BMW and using their SAE 0W40 recommendation the Z/Ph levels are likely way up there - probably not a coincidence. And don't forget - if you have a diesel the diesel motor oil standards are different from the gasoline motor oil standards. Probably a reason for that as well....

TOH

ell, stewartr, it is your MC, so you ought to know, but you did say 'older BMW' & I don't know of wet clutches in BMWs until later years. Yamaha says not to use automotive oils in their MCs with wet clutches because such oil has too much 'friction modifier'....could be they just want to sell high dollar oil in a Yamaha bottle? :roll:

 

[TheOldHokie]

(quoted from post at 12:39:11 01/20/11) Well, stewartr, it is your MC, so you ought to know, but you did say 'older BMW' & I don't know of wet clutches in BMWs until later years. Yamaha says not to use automotive oils in their MCs with wet clutches because such oil has too much 'friction modifier'....could be they just want to sell high dollar oil in a Yamaha bottle? :roll:

JMOR - not everyone is our age and to some "older" means yesterday's model Check out the notes in the Mobil 1 Product Guide (pp2) for their Mobil 1 Racing and Mobil 1 V-twin products. They seem to have blended something special up for use with motorcycle clutches AND motors requiring a high Z/Ph level. That really is a very informative table. Just think of all the help it would be to people buying oil if they had a copy hanging on the wall next to the jugs :roll:

TOH

 

[JMOR]

(quoted from post at 13:12:38 01/20/11)

(quoted from post at 12:39:11 01/20/11) Well, stewartr, it is your MC, so you ought to know, but you did say 'older BMW' & I don't know of wet clutches in BMWs until later years. Yamaha says not to use automotive oils in their MCs with wet clutches because such oil has too much 'friction modifier'....could be they just want to sell high dollar oil in a Yamaha bottle? :roll:

JMOR - not everyone is our age and to some "older" means yesterday's model Check out the notes in the Mobil 1 Product Guide (pp2) for their Mobil 1 Racing and Mobil 1 V-twin products. They seem to have blended something special up for use with motorcycle clutches AND motors requiring a high Z/Ph level. That really is a very informative table. Just think of all the help it would be to people buying oil if they had a copy hanging on the wall next to the jugs :roll:

TOH

nteresting info in the 'guide'. Yeah, don't always remember that "old" means older than the speaker. :roll:

 

[old]

I have been riding scoots for 41 years now. Or for the one that do not understand scoots motorcycles and I have always used the run of the mill oil in all of them. Honda's, Yamaha's, Suzuki's Triumph's, Kawasaki and BMWs. I lost count of how many bikes I have had over the years but it is well over 20. Never had any trouble with any oil related thing on any of them

 

[stewartr]

Great info on the oil!

The bike is a 1976 R90/6, so I guess "older" is a bit relative. It's older than it's owner!

I remember going into the local BMW motorcycle dealership a couple years ago (now closed down), and the guy behind the counter gave me some very confusing information regarding oil specs for airheads. I was changing the oil in my Dad's bike, and he was the one who first planted the idea that non-BMW brand oils lacked the shear strength for the clutch. Maybe he was trying to explain why BMW motorcycle oils aren't appropriate for other makes with wet clutches, and I got it all mixed around in my head? I need to just forget that conversation.

Yes, BMW's have a dry clutch (all except the f650). That's part of what confused me even more. Here's what I was trying to explain:

"(Zinc and phosphorous are being substituted with molybdenum disulfide, which lowers friction and improves gas mileage. However, molybdenum is bad for some motorcycle wet clutches and starter motor clutches. The moly issue caused Honda to offer its HP4 engine oil both with and without it.)

With the reduced level of phosphorous in some SJ oils, BMW issued a Service Bulletin to address the issue. It said that SJ oils were not approved for BMW motorcycle engines. They recommended oils with API specifications of SF, SG, or SH. These were the older grades that supposedly had been superseded by the new SJ. BMW threatened to void warranties if SJ oils were used.

This edict caused quite a bit of confusion as BMW allowed SJ oils in their cars and no other motorcycle manufacturer had problems with the new oils. BMW later recanted by stating the SJ rating was acceptable if the oil was additionally rated at one of the previous SG and/or SH grades. BMW continues to recommend their own OEM-branded motorcycle oils. These Spectro formulated oils feature the best additives from both the old and new SAE API standards. "
http://www.bmwscotter.com/topics/engine_oil/engine_oil.htm

 

[TheOldHokie]

(quoted from post at 15:31:12 01/20/11) Great info on the oil!

The bike is a 1976 R90/6, so I guess "older" is a bit relative. It's older than it's owner!

I remember going into the local BMW motorcycle dealership a couple years ago (now closed down), and the guy behind the counter gave me some very confusing information regarding oil specs for airheads. I was changing the oil in my Dad's bike, and he was the one who first planted the idea that non-BMW brand oils lacked the shear strength for the clutch. Maybe he was trying to explain why off the shelf motorcycle oils aren't appropriate for BMW's, and I got it all mixed around in my head? I need to just forget that conversation.

Yes, BMW's have a dry clutch (all except the f650). That's part of what confused me even more. Here's what I was trying to explain:

"(Zinc and phosphorous are being substituted with molybdenum disulfide, which lowers friction and improves gas mileage. However, molybdenum is bad for some motorcycle wet clutches and starter motor clutches. The moly issue caused Honda to offer its HP4 engine oil both with and without it.)

With the reduced level of phosphorous in some SJ oils, BMW issued a Service Bulletin to address the issue. It said that SJ oils were not approved for BMW motorcycle engines. They recommended oils with API specifications of SF, SG, or SH. These were the older grades that supposedly had been superseded by the new SJ. BMW threatened to void warranties if SJ oils were used.

This edict caused quite a bit of confusion as BMW allowed SJ oils in their cars and no other motorcycle manufacturer had problems with the new oils. BMW later recanted by stating the SJ rating was acceptable if the oil was additionally rated at one of the previous SG and/or SH grades. BMW continues to recommend their own OEM-branded motorcycle oils. These Spectro formulated oils feature the best additives from both the old and new SAE API standards. "

http://www.bmwscotter.com/topics/engine_oil/engine_oil.htm

So your R90 is still under BMW warranty??? Other than a few minor nits not much to debate in bmwscotter's discussion - very well researched it would appear. I do however find claims of "vastly superior" with no supporting technical discussion less than persuasive. If the issue is just Z/Ph levels I think it would be hard to find fault with Mobil 1 Racing or any of the other (e.g Amsoil) products that have quite high levels regardless of the SL/SM service class rating. And I am absolutely shocked that BMW would recommend their own brands :roll:

TOH

 

[old]

Shoot that is only a 35 year old scoot not all that old for a beemer it is just about broke in LOL. Years ago I rode a 1967 R60S loved the bike and still mad at my brother over that one. Back then we ran the common run of the mil car/truck oils in it and all the other bikes we had and never ever had a problem. Shoot I still ride a 1976 Honda CB360T and the boy who is in the Navy rides get this a 1976 Honda 550-4. If you parked the 2 bikes side by side and walked off sat 50 yards it is hard to tell which is which because they are both about the same color and both have sissy bars o them

 

[Robert Zack]

in the last 20 years i've had an '81 honda 750K. '83 honda 1000 custom, '81 & '84 BMW R100RT's, '94 BMW R1100RS....used castrol GTX in all of them without any problems. i also added 1/2 qt. of Rislone at every oil change on the bikes & gravely tractors ( kohler K series engines ) & a qt per change in my car & truck. i think i already ranted about rislone on this forum. good stuff!!

 

[weaveman01]

Hate to burst you bubble, but sf had 1800ppm of zddp, and cf had over 2000ppm of zddp. They drastically lowered the limits to protect catalytic converters. So now, the question is how will it affect older engines down the road? High lift flat tappet cams are having premature breakdown sometimes in less than 500 miles on hot rod engines, so does that mean all flat tappet engines will show some type of accelerated wear? Will people be replacing their cams more frequently because of it? I don't know, but I do think it's a topic to be aware of as people are using modern oils in older engines.
On a sidenote, if someone is using car oil in the trans of a motorcycle without clutch slippage, then they drive like my grandma or their bike is of very low horsepower. I tried that on a vmax, fzr600 and a v65 magna and all of their clutches slipped under rapid acceleration with car oil. Changed to motorcycle oil and they fixed themselves in a 100 miles.

But honestly, run olive oil in your crank case if it works for you. After all, it's your machine.

 

[stewartr]

(quoted from post at 12:53:07 01/20/11)

So your R90 is still under BMW warranty???

TOH

That would be some kind of service plan!

I was just being cautious, and probably over thinking it. I always ran standard 10w-40 in my '79 cx500

 

[TheOldHokie]

(quoted from post at 19:15:18 01/20/11) Hate to burst you bubble, but sf had 1800ppm of zddp, and cf had over 2000ppm of zddp. They drastically lowered the limits to protect catalytic converters. So now, the question is how will it affect older engines down the road? High lift flat tappet cams are having premature breakdown sometimes in less than 500 miles on hot rod engines, so does that mean all flat tappet engines will show some type of accelerated wear? Will people be replacing their cams more frequently because of it? I don't know, but I do think it's a topic to be aware of as people are using modern oils in older engines.

Really - what's your source for that SF assertion - have a copy of the spec handy? Paul Seminara - a major Amsoil distributor and one of the resident industry experts over on bobistheoilguy.com - had this to say when asked that very question:

There were no specifications about P and Zn for SF. IOW there was no limitation on P and Zn. Typical PCMO's used 1000-1200 ppm or so.

So absent a copy of the relevant specifications who are we going to believe? Bottom line - if you want higher concentrations the oil is there - you simply have to be willing to pay the price associated with a niche market oil.

TOH

 

[Jock (OR)]

Everyone should pay attenton to the wisdom that TOH is offering here: Study up on the oil before you choose.

There is a difference in oils. Maybe it will make a difference in your application - maybe not. Educate yourself to make the right choice. With emissions driving the blending of modern oils, additives are changing, and current production machines are the target market. Some new blends will work well in older equipment, or special equipment, some won't. It is up to you to figure it out.

After you figure it out, please share it with the rest of us!!!!

 

[weaveman01]

Quoting Removed, click Modern View to see

Explain to me how to make this modern view from this website, and then I might be able to follow what you are asking.

 

[JMOR]

(quoted from post at 21:33:38 01/20/11) Everyone should pay attenton to the wisdom that TOH is offering here: Study up on the oil before you choose.

There is a difference in oils. Maybe it will make a difference in your application - maybe not. Educate yourself to make the right choice. With emissions driving the blending of modern oils, additives are changing, and current production machines are the target market. Some new blends will work well in older equipment, or special equipment, some won't. It is up to you to figure it out.

After you figure it out, please share it with the rest of us!!!!

peaking ONLY to the oil aspect of the whole scheme of things....you should be so 'lucky?'...in early 60's my dad bought 300 gallons of oil for his then fleet of equipment....then sadly & far too early died. I have been using it in my old vintage tractors since & will likely have enough to run them to my end. If it had the right Zddp (whatever) for the engines of the time, then I guess it is still right....still running the tractors & his PU today. Personally, I think it is much adoo about not much. Now that is opinion...not fact. Probably run on olive oil! :wink:

 

[weaveman01]

So I go and check out the mobil 1 site and the only oil with enough zddp to be close to sf ratings is 15w50 at 1500ppm. Even the ow40 is only 1000ppm and well below sf-sj ratings. Just to set the debate straight api rating sm was set on the idea of a maximum amount of zddp to be allowed at 800ppm (I think, I may be off a little). Before that oil manufacturers still remembered that zddp was needed, especially in older engines, and zddp was added accordingly. Quick search came up with one guy and his oil company that still makes an sf-sg rated oil:
http://kirks-auto.com/Oil_101_byRobertKirk.html

Plenty of info on old oil specs if you want to look, but it's not even the point.

As far as finding an API chart that says that there was a set standard for zddp before SM- would be like finding out how much asbestos was used in brake pads- nobody knows, but we do know that asbestos made it a better brake pad until the government started regulating it.

If that doesn't help you, think leaded and unleaded gas and the consequences to some vehicles at that time.

I hope this makes sense to you, because if those examples don't tell you why people are skeptical of government regulation on their choice of oils in older vehicles, then we are not even discussing this on the same level.

The only way to prove the effects of SM oils on old tractors will be time. Hopefully you're right TOH and it won't matter about zddp. I'm so cheap that I will be one of those running sm oil in my tractor just to avoid buying additives or $8 bottles of oil. But you're argument for less zddp is inconclusive at best.

 

[lha]

I just bought a bottle of Champion assembly lube and oil booster,which has lots of zinc.It says it increases anti-wear protection of api sm oils up to 40 per cent&cj4 up to 30 per cent.Don't know for sure but it's a lot of product for $7.99.---lha

 

[Jock (OR)]

In the little box above this post you will see in the right hand corner the words "modern view".

Click on the words "modern view."

 

[TheOldHokie]

(quoted from post at 23:09:57 01/20/11) So I go and check out the mobil 1 site and the only oil with enough zddp to be close to sf ratings is 15w50 at 1500ppm. Even the ow40 is only 1000ppm and well below sf-sj ratings. Just to set the debate straight api rating sm was set on the idea of a maximum amount of zddp to be allowed at 800ppm (I think, I may be off a little). Before that oil manufacturers still remembered that zddp was needed, especially in older engines, and zddp was added accordingly. Quick search came up with one guy and his oil company that still makes an sf-sg rated oil:
http://kirks-auto.com/Oil_101_byRobertKirk.html

Plenty of info on old oil specs if you want to look, but it's not even the point.

As far as finding an API chart that says that there was a set standard for zddp before SM- would be like finding out how much asbestos was used in brake pads- nobody knows, but we do know that asbestos made it a better brake pad until the government started regulating it.

If that doesn't help you, think leaded and unleaded gas and the consequences to some vehicles at that time.

I hope this makes sense to you, because if those examples don't tell you why people are skeptical of government regulation on their choice of oils in older vehicles, then we are not even discussing this on the same level.

The only way to prove the effects of SM oils on old tractors will be time. Hopefully you're right TOH and it won't matter about zddp. I'm so cheap that I will be one of those running sm oil in my tractor just to avoid buying additives or $8 bottles of oil. But you're argument for less zddp is inconclusive at best.

I'm still waiting for you to give me a reasonably authoritative source for a zinc/phosphorous specification in the SF product licensing standard. And I am not arguing for less ZDDP - the engineers in the oil and automotive industry are. They test and they test before they write a new specifcation - Mack, Volvo, Daimler-Benz, Caterpillar, Chrysler, Rolls, GM, Toyota, Nissan - big boys with big investments in their motor warranties.

Even the very high performance racing oil market which is not constrained by API licensing requirements thinks 1500-1800 PPM is adequate. They also know that zinc and phosphorous are corrosive (that's how they work) and in concentrations much higher than that they actually shorten engine life. Go over to Joe Gibbs racing and read what his engineering team has to say about zinc. They like it - they tout it. Now look at a data sheet for his "loaded with zinc" hot rod oils - 1200-1300 PPM. Can't afford his prices - here are some others.

TOH

PS> Asbestos brake pads worked no better than modern materials and they killed a lot of people

[code:1:fd7496371c]
AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oils Phosphorus Zinc Level
Level (ppm) (ppm)
AMO 10W-40 Synthetic
Premium Protection Motor Oil 1265 1378
ARO 20W-50 Synthetic
Premium Protection Motor Oil 1266 1379
HDD Series 3000 Synthetic
5W-30 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil 1266 1379
AME 15W-40 Synthetic Heavy
Duty Diesel and Marine Motor Oil 1267 1377

AMSOIL Synthetic Racing Oils Phosphorus Zinc Level
Level (ppm) (ppm)
RD20 Dominator Synthetic
Racing Oil 5W-20 1424 1575
RD30 Dominator Synthetic
Racing Oil 10W-30 1424 1575
RD50 Dominator Synthetic
Racing Oil 15W-50 1424 1575
AHR SAE 60 Synthetic Super
Heavy Weight Racing Oil 1265 1375
[/code:1:fd7496371c]