I must admit that I still haven’t heard the about 53,203 messages (on this and
other mailing lists) about ZDDP issues, so I haven’t come to any conclusion
about that, but in case someone has, and they decided they want some additive,
here’s one:
In reply to a message from Diego Montefusco sent Wed 30 Apr 2008:
For what it’s worth… I just got an email from Joe Gibbs
Racing announcing their new oil specifically designed for
flat tappet cars. http://www.joegibbsdriven.com/hotrod/--
The original message included these comments:
I must admit that I still haven’t heard the about 53,203 messages (on this and
other mailing lists) about ZDDP issues, so I haven’t come to any conclusion
about that, but in case someone has, and they decided they want some additive,
here’s one:
In reply to a message from SFjames sent Thu 1 May 2008:
From a person who is as wary of ‘snake oils’ as ever you’ll find,
ZDDP isn’t one of them. The data exists in excess that it’s not.
Now, whether or nor all pre-89 cars are in need of more than
what’s in normal, modern oils isn’t a slam-dunk, but there also
appears to be a good amount of data showing it’s more than not.–
The original message included these comments:
Snake Oil…
–
Paul Wigton, steward to a '60 DKW 1000 SP, Tweety, '63 FHC!
Keenesburg, CO, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from Wiggles sent Fri 2 May 2008:
This web site seems to offer a lot more information about the same
product.
I agree with Wigs that this particular product may not be snake oil.–
The original message included these comments:
From a person who is as wary of ‘snake oils’ as ever you’ll find,
ZDDP isn’t one of them. The data exists in excess that it’s not.
Now, whether or nor all pre-89 cars are in need of more than
what’s in normal, modern oils isn’t a slam-dunk, but there also
appears to be a good amount of data showing it’s more than not.
–
John Walker, 1969 2+2 - ‘Lola’
La Porte, Tex, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from John Walker sent Fri 2 May 2008:
Since that product is ZDDP, it seems like a good option for those
that are concerned about this issue. If I were breaking in a new
engine I’d probably be tempted to use it for the first few
changes. After that, I doubt it matters. But, for the paranoid,
there doesn’t seem to be any down-side to using it either, other
than the small additional cost for each oil change.–
Ray Livingston - '64 OTS Santa Cruz, CA
Santa Cruz, CA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from Ray Livingston sent Fri 2 May 2008:
I have a good friend that works as an engineer in the friction
lubricant side of Chevron. We have spent entire evenings discussing
this issue.
He also happens to take with the guys that do the actual standards
testing on motor oils often.
They are all aware of the concerns of the classic car folks.
However, they have repeatedly stated that they are not seeing any
effects of the removal of ZDDP.
They do all their testing on flat tappet engines in controlled
environments that we can only dream about having at our disposal.
There are lots of anecdotal remarks about problems; however, not a
single controlled study has shown a thing.
The additives that the oil companies are using in place of ZDDP
appear to be doing the job.
The problem is that so many people are convinced that the loss of
ZDDP will harm their engines that they are demanding the stuff.
The only controlled testes being done show there is no problem. But
the market is responding to the demand (collective hysteria) on
this issue even though there is no science showing a problem.
Snake Oil.
Best, James–
James 1963 XKE Coupe
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from Ray Livingston sent Fri 2 May 2008:
I have a good friend that works as an engineer in the friction lubricant
side of Chevron. We have spent entire evenings discussing this issue.
He also happens to take with the guys that do the actual standards
testing on motor oils often.
They are all aware of the concerns of the classic car folks.
However, they have repeatedly stated that they are not seeing any
effects of the removal of ZDDP.
They do all their testing on flat tappet engines in controlled
environments that we can only dream about having at our disposal.
There are lots of anecdotal remarks about problems; however, not a
single controlled study has shown a thing.
The additives that the oil companies are using in place of ZDDP appear
to be doing the job.
The problem is that so many people are convinced that the loss of ZDDP
will harm their engines that they are demanding the stuff.
The only controlled testes being done show there is no problem. But the
market is responding to the demand (collective hysteria) on this issue
even though there is no science showing a problem.
In reply to a message from Braun, David G. sent Fri 2 May 2008:
Then, using that rationale, was the ZDDP they took out of oils,
snake oil all along?
I’m a scientist and a reductionist, in thss dog fight, so I’m with
you, vis-a-vis needing a shot of ZDDP in your oil changes.
I’m certainly willing to accept the rationale that they’ve found an
additive that’s more friendly to cat converters (the reason the
ZDDP was removed in the first place) and that does as good a job as
ZDDP but to just claim ZDDP is, in and of itself, snakeoil…is
incorrect.
Ipso facto…–
The original message included these comments:
There are lots of anecdotal remarks about problems; however, not a
single controlled study has shown a thing.
The additives that the oil companies are using in place of ZDDP appear
to be doing the job.
The problem is that so many people are convinced that the loss of ZDDP
will harm their engines that they are demanding the stuff.
Snake Oil.
–
Paul Wigton, steward to a '60 DKW 1000 SP, Tweety, '63 FHC!
Keenesburg, CO, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from Wiggles sent Fri 2 May 2008:
As usual, my writing skills stink. I did not mean to say that ZDDP
was snake oil.
What I wanted to say was that the replacements to ZDDP appear to
work just fine and that there is no hard evidence that the flat
tappet engines are having increased wear with ZDDP missing or in
much lower amounts.
Adding ZDDP to the new oils, which have ZDDP replacements, as an
action for a non-existent problem is snake oil.
Best, James–
The original message included these comments:
ZDDP but to just claim ZDDP is, in and of itself, snakeoil…is
incorrect.
FYI: Being in the British Car Restoration business gives me the opportunity
to rebuild and inspect many of these old engines.Four of the last five MG
Engines I rebuilt had failed lifters and wiped cams. I haven’t seen a
problem with a Jag yet. I’ve signed on as a distributor for ZDDPlus since
I’m pretty well convinced there is a problem. There are probably many other
solutions such as some of the oils advertised for antique cars.
Ken Beck---- Original Message -----From: “Wiggles” vrooomie@fastmail.fm
To: e-type@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 7:43 PM
Subject: RE: [E-Type] ZDDP additive
In reply to a message from SFjames sent Sat 3 May 2008:
That one, we’re singing from the same (API) hymnal!
The original message included these comments:
Adding ZDDP to the new oils, which have ZDDP replacements, as an
action for a non-existent problem is snake oil.
–
Paul Wigton, steward to a '60 DKW 1000 SP, Tweety, '63 FHC!
Keenesburg, CO, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from SFjames sent Sat 3 May 2008:
You’re absolutely correct here in pointing out that it isn’t
ZDDP that is the magic new snake oil cure-all. It’s the new
replacement additives that claim to break new ground.
I may well be paranoid but I suspect that the requirement
for car manufacturers to warrant catalytic converters for
100,000 miles carries more weight with the oil companies
than the concerns of old car owners. Several companies are
now producing oils that have ZDDP levels similar to older
formulations. Not having a catalytic converter to protect,
I’ll happily pay the few extra pennies to stay with what’s
worked well for decades.–
The original message included these comments:
As usual, my writing skills stink. I did not mean to say that ZDDP
was snake oil.
What I wanted to say was that the replacements to ZDDP appear to
work just fine and that there is no hard evidence that the flat
tappet engines are having increased wear with ZDDP missing or in
much lower amounts.
Adding ZDDP to the new oils, which have ZDDP replacements, as an
action for a non-existent problem is snake oil.
Best, James
–
Tom Morris '62 E-type FHC (885688)
Sechelt, British Columbia, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from Ken Beck sent Sat 3 May 2008:
Ken,
I know someone who restores MGB’s. He noted problems with cams and
lifters.
After some examination of the torn up engines, which he rebuilt, he
found that 50% of the lifters he purchased had a Rockwell hardness
well south of 40Rc.
THAT is what was killing his engines. Oil had nothing to do with
it. He now has ALL his lifters and cams send out for a Rockwell
test and he told me he routinely sends 1/2 of the stuff back as not
acceptable.
Did you test the failed parts beforehand and know that they are in
the 45RC to 55Rc range, or is it just an assumption that it was the
oil that caused the failure?
James–
The original message included these comments:
FYI: Being in the British Car Restoration business gives me the opportunity
to rebuild and inspect many of these old engines.Four of the last five MG
Engines I rebuilt had failed lifters and wiped cams. I haven’t seen a
problem with a Jag yet. I’ve signed on as a distributor for ZDDPlus since
