Wrong oil

[Onoff]

I wonder if you an add Zinc to a new type of oil?

or slick 50??

Didn't something happen ref Slick 50?

It was the thing to use back in the day and having the little sticker that came in the box gave you bragging rights.

Isn't the original Slick 50 formula sold under a different brand name now and the stuff labelled Slick 50 not the same/not so good?

I could be wrong.

 

[premmington]

Pal of mine, bit like @premmington , runs a straight garage operation, tells it like it is and runs away from cheap customers. One of his regulars bought a pretty flash, top of the range Merc or BMW and brought it in wanting "all the oils changed". He was advised to leave the gearbox alone, it wasn't necessary yet and besides, the oil from the main dealers was really expensive. Couple weeks later he came back in, will you have a look at the gearbox, it is doing weird things. Sure enough he had the oil changed by someone else and the gearbox was well kooked .

Some of the modern gearboxes are not to be messed with.

Your modern "slosh box" - needs the right oil(s) spilled at the right temp to get the right level.

You need the right scan tool - the right filling adapter - and the right oil.

None of this is cheap....

 

[Dragnet]

It has been mentioned but maybe not loud enough, old spec oils have Zinc and you need Zinc where you have high pressure sliding surfaces, i.e. camshafts with followers or rockers, Catalytic converters don't like Zinc so manufacturers started fitting roller rockers with roller bearings where they ride on the cam, no sliding, no need for Zinc! you will not get a Zinc additive in a "modern" oil.

The reduction in phosphorus limits (which is the problem element for poisoning catalytic converters) means ZDTP has been reduced, but the anti-wear performance has been increased using formulations with less phosphorus. Again, to anyone with an older car, I highly recommend buying 'Which Oil?' to clear up all the confusion floating around the Infobahn. I guess I can't quote the whole section for copyright reasons, but here are some snippets from one of the ZDTP sections in the book.

One important part has to be: "Can I use a modern, low zinc engine oil in my classic car? For the vast majority of owners, the answer is yes. These modern oils have to pass stringent engine wear tests. Their anti-wear performance is certainly superior to the oils sold prior to the early 1970s. ...how highly stressed was the original engine [for cars produced later than the early '70s with original specification camshafts] - is it a high performance model? If it is highly stressed then I would not use a low phosphorus oil....for all other engines I would not have a concern."

He also adds that "...the chemical reaction that allows ZDTP to form a protective film does not proceed at room temperature or even at modest temperatures. The exact temperature at which it begins varies with the chemistry of the ZDTP additive involved. However, running in an engine at too low a temperature or load can lead to excessive cam wear."

Because these anti-wear additives have the same effect, "In talking anti-wear performance we cannot simply talk zinc...However, the second contributor to the net [quoted in the first page attached] is absolutely correct in stating that running zero zinc in an old engine is asking for trouble. It would be asking for trouble to use such an oil in any engine built since about 1925. Fortunately, no such oils exist in the general marketplace. To find one you would have to go to a specialist supplier and ask for an engine oil of SA performance level."

 

[Stupoty]

ChatGPT "knows" nothing. It simply regurgitates what it has "heard" on the internet.

G.I.G.O.

I had it describe exactly what a GWR siphon wagon was and how it worked which I had been unable to find through some limited book research and googling.

I've also had it give me totally unhelpful stuff too though.

Stu

 

[RWD3M]

The reduction in phosphorus limits (which is the problem element for poisoning catalytic converters) means ZDTP has been reduced, but the anti-wear performance has been increased using formulations with less phosphorus. Again, to anyone with an older car, I highly recommend buying 'Which Oil?' to clear up all the confusion floating around the Infobahn. I guess I can't quote the whole section for copyright reasons, but here are some snippets from one of the ZDTP sections in the book.

One important part has to be: "Can I use a modern, low zinc engine oil in my classic car? For the vast majority of owners, the answer is yes. These modern oils have to pass stringent engine wear tests. Their anti-wear performance is certainly superior to the oils sold prior to the early 1970s. ...how highly stressed was the original engine [for cars produced later than the early '70s with original specification camshafts] - is it a high performance model? If it is highly stressed then I would not use a low phosphorus oil....for all other engines I would not have a concern."

He also adds that "...the chemical reaction that allows ZDTP to form a protective film does not proceed at room temperature or even at modest temperatures. The exact temperature at which it begins varies with the chemistry of the ZDTP additive involved. However, running in an engine at too low a temperature or load can lead to excessive cam wear."

Because these anti-wear additives have the same effect, "In talking anti-wear performance we cannot simply talk zinc...However, the second contributor to the net [quoted in the first page attached] is absolutely correct in stating that running zero zinc in an old engine is asking for trouble. It would be asking for trouble to use such an oil in any engine built since about 1925. Fortunately, no such oils exist in the general marketplace. To find one you would have to go to a specialist supplier and ask for an engine oil of SA performance level."

View attachment 471635 View attachment 471636 View attachment 471637

This is interesting stuff @Dragnet , but improtant to remember, at least for the one or two of us that have them, this still doesn't apply to a lot of MUCH older cars, i.e. those without oil filters. The detergents in modern oils hold carp in suspension waiting for an oil filter to catch it. In an older engine, that carp would then just get recirculated accelerating wear, rather than being allowed to fall to the bottom of the sump where it can be cleaned out regularly.

 

[Robotstar5]

This is interesting stuff @Dragnet , but improtant to remember, at least for the one or two of us that have them, this still doesn't apply to a lot of MUCH older cars, i.e. those without oil filters. The detergents in modern oils hold carp in suspension waiting for an oil filter to catch it. In an older engine, that carp would then just get recirculated accelerating wear, rather than being allowed to fall to the bottom of the sump where it can be cleaned out regularly.

None of my vintage stationary engines have oil filters, just run on straight SAE 30 mineral oil and have access plates to clean out the sump.

 

[Dragnet]

This is interesting stuff @Dragnet , but improtant to remember, at least for the one or two of us that have them, this still doesn't apply to a lot of MUCH older cars, i.e. those without oil filters. The detergents in modern oils hold carp in suspension waiting for an oil filter to catch it. In an older engine, that carp would then just get recirculated accelerating wear, rather than being allowed to fall to the bottom of the sump where it can be cleaned out regularly.

I can't pinpoint a bit about detergents in those quotations that you're responding to - I think we're at cross purposes. Newer anti-wear formulations with low phosphorus are still more effective, whatever the age of engine, so certainly apply. However, detergents and dispersants are covered in the book too.
I'm going to be very awkward and quote some more, as he addresses this very concern with the opposite conclusion! In fact, it is the first entry in the 'Answers to some common questions' chapter.

"In general, if your car has no oil filter, (or only a partial filter system), you will be better off using an oil with detergents/dispersants than one without them. I am very aware that this is the opposite of the answer usually given in Internet chat forums....The idea that, if you do not have a filter, solids formed from inadequate combustion or other sources, will sink to the bottom of the sump is a plausible but naive one. At the time that they are formed, combustion solids - and these are the prime source of solid particles - are microscopically small. They will not settle out under gravity. They will either adhere to metal surfaces or, over time, to each other. Eventually they will grow big enough to be seen and to settle. While they are still microscopic, solid particles do very little damage. Hence it is best to keep them at this size if possible. This is the function of oil dispersant additives. To gether with detergents, they will also discourage the tendency to adhere to metal surfaces and to accumulate there. Also, if particles are allowed to grow they will reach a size where they do damage before they are large enough to settle out.

An exception to this is if your car is a vintage model and burns large amounts of oil - as an inherent part of its lubrication system design - and requires frequent decarbonising. Detergents, and to a lesser extent, dispersants, may increase the quantity of material to be decarbonised.

[Some discussion of full/partial filtration systems, and the efficiency and method of oil filter function]

...irrespective of the type and efficiency of your cars oil filtration system, it is best to use a detergent/dispersant oil. Relying on gravity to remove solid particles will almost certainly ensure that they have grown to a size where they cause damage before they finally are heavy enough to settle or be trapped by a filter. Irrespective of which filtration system (if any) you car has, you should ensure that you drain the engine oil regularly. Do not run extended drain intervals, measured either in terms of distance travelled or operating hours."