Posts by don_old

  • Motor Oil

    Below is a copy of a recent discussion on the NCRS (National Corvette Resoration Society) site. Thought some of you might like it.


    interesting article oil from GM

    clem zahrobsky <Send E-Mail> -- Tuesday, 4 December 2007, at 1:57 p.m.


    Engine Oil Myths


    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.

    - Thanks to Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group


    Re: interesting article oil from GM

    Kelly James <Send E-Mail> -- Tuesday, 4 December 2007, at 3:30 p.m.


    Even so what about the shear factor? The diesel engine oils have got to be better on just that alone. Well I am sticking with the diesel oil in my older cars. Cant wait to hear what Duke says.


    Kelly


    Re: interesting article oil from GM

    clem zahrobsky <Send E-Mail> -- Tuesday, 4 December 2007, at 4:46 p.m.


    the only people that reported trouble were the ones that installed after market camshafts.


    Re: interesting article oil from GM

    Alan Drake <Send E-Mail> -- Tuesday, 4 December 2007, at 8:34 p.m.


    I first heard about the oil issue many years ago relative to Buick Grand Nationals getting their STOCK V6's trashed due to the oil so it's not just the after market stuff. The difference in cost for C? oil is nothing so I'll just continue to use it, OH need it anyways for truck.


    Re: interesting article oil from GM

    Kevin Muldoon <Send E-Mail> -- Wednesday, 5 December 2007, at 1:04 a.m.


    I always felt it couldn't hurt only help.


    Kevin


    Re: interesting article oil from GM

    Ken Bushley #45887 <Send E-Mail> -- Wednesday, 5 December 2007, at 9:00 a.m.


    Clem...I have been told by numerous people about the use of synthetic oil in a new motor. I have been told that the rings and other parts do not seat properly.I was going to use a synthetic but after hearing of this i chose not to. One person that i consider very knowledgable said that GM has a service bulletin that says do not use it until you get 2500 miles on the motor..Any truth to that..Synthetic is my choice so any help that you can give will be awesome..


    Re: interesting article oil from GM

    Terry #3966 <Send E-Mail> -- Wednesday, 5 December 2007, at 10:06 a.m.


    For years (since sometime in the C-4 era), including current production, Corvettes have been factory filled with Mobil 1 synthetic. There are no widespread reports of rings failing to seat. I would call this an "old wife's tale" except I have never heard an old wife pass it on.


    Re: interesting article oil from GM

    Duke Williams <Send E-Mail> -- Wednesday, 5 December 2007, at 10:08 a.m.


    I'm not sure if there are any significant differences in the shear stability and oxidation tests for S and C categories. Modern base stocks for both are very good, today, and have improved significantly over time.


    I have no major disagreement with the article, but offer the following comments.


    SM oils are "okay" for vintage engines, but if a better alternative is available at about the same price, why not use it?


    S-category oils with winter grades of 10W or less are limited to .08% phosphorous, which places a limit on ZDDP. The current C-category specification, CJ-4, limits P to .12%, which is about the level of previous oils, many of which were dual rated, carrying both the then current S and C service categories.


    As stated in the article the motivation for reduction of ZDDP (as measured by P) is protection of catalysts, and modern engines don't need as much because of fewer sliding elements in valvetrains.


    It's a matter of chosing "okay" or "better" motor oil for vintage engines. I also use CJ-4 in my two "near vintage" daily drivers both of which have "modern" three way catalysts. One has a direct acting DOHC valvetrain, the other is SOHC with shaft mounted non-roller rocker arms. Since they both have low mileage for their age and only accumulate about a thousand miles a year, each, I'm not concerned about catalyst poisoning with CJ-4, and they both perform well in field emission tests.


    Duke


    Re: interesting article oil from GM

    John Hinckley <Send E-Mail> -- Wednesday, 5 December 2007, at 2:43 p.m.


    The Viper factory fill is also Mobil 1, and we built the engine from the bare block up in the assembly plant, right next to the Chassis Line where we installed it. Modern moly-faced piston rings seat in about five minutes after first-fire.


    Re: interesting article oil from GM

    Joe Lucia <Send E-Mail> -- Wednesday, 5 December 2007, at 4:59 p.m.


    Terry and Ken
    <hr class="bbcode_rule" />


    LT1 small blocks for the 1992 model year were the first to be factory-filled with synthetic motor oil. The LT5 went to it in 1993 or 1994. Since then, I believe that all Corvette engines have been factory filled with Mobil 1.

  • They're still out there...

    Seeing this type of Mustang is very common in So. Cal. This is why I get very few "looks" when I drive my K Code - the average driver doesn't realize the difference and 1st generation driver Mustang's are still common.


    For what it is worth - the number of "looks" increase when driving my girlfriend's '69 Z28 or my '62 Corvette. There are far fewer of these on the road.


    My enjoyment is about the same in any of the cars - but I do notice the "looks" and comments.

  • Transmission Bolts

    I pulled my transmission and noticed that the bolts are different lenghts (1 3/4" and 1 1/2") and that the markings on the heads are different. Two of the bolts have and "E" inside a circle with three spokes radiating from the circle and one of the bolts has an "N" (no circle) with three spokes radiating outward.


    Any comments which, if any, are correct ?


    Thanks

  • Exhaust System

    If the drawings for the Arvindale system are truely still available then having it reproduced should not be difficult - just expensive. The Chevy "chambered exhaust" used on the Z28 (and maybe others) is being reproduced and was also used for only a short period of time due to complaints about the noise level.


    How would I go about getting the drawings/specificiations ?

  • Exhaust System

    The build date was 2/18/65 - VIN 636078. From what I've been able to determine the Arvindale system may very well have been installed originally.


    The car has since had the GT package installed - Trumpet tips through the valance.


    Thanks

  • Exhaust System

    What do the experts (you guys) suggest regarding vendors/mfg for a replacement exhaust system for my '65 K conv? I would like to keep it as close to original as possible. I want everything but the exhaust manifolds - pipes, mufflers, hangers, tips, etc.


    I've seen positive comments regarding K.A.R. complete system and also Scott Drakes trumpet exhaust tips.


    Thanks for the advice.

  • Reproduction battery

    I also have the Restoration Battery and I have no complaints. Tom at Restoration Battery was great to work with after UPS damaged the first one that was sent. Hint - follow the instructions on the box and immediately open the box to make sure UPS didn't damage the box. If you don't know - the "battery" is really a smaller sealed battery inside the reproduction case.


    They are not cheap but look great and don't have to worry about leakage and maintence.

  • NOS vintage parts dealers

    Fred Ballard -


    I met Fred about 2 years ago and he got me interested in Hang Gliding - Fred is "Master" pilot with literally thousands of flights under his belt - under his wing.


    Recently I asked Fred to take my Hipo for a drive and tell me if the shifting problem was the linkage or the transmission. As he headed to the car I told him "don't pull out the choke knob all the way - it will stick closed". I explained that I had the Carb rebuilt and they could find what was wrong. What does Fred do??? Immediately pops the hood, removes the airfilter assembly and manually shuts the choke. Sure enough it is stuck - didn't I warn him of that ???. Well it takes Fred about 2-3 seconds to determine that a piece on the linkage is backwards - I get him a screwdriver and in about 90 seconds everything is back together and working perfectly.


    Now I'm waiting to get my car over to him for some restoration work.

  • Tool Boxes

    I've decided to finally get a "real" tool box. I'm thinking of something like a 5-7 drawer on wheels with a 3 - 5 drawer on top.


    Snap-On seems nice but way more money than I want to spend.


    I'm looking for suggestions on Makes / Models that I should consider - also any that I should avoid.


    Thanks

  • Shock Absorber Recommendations

    Any comments/suggestions for Shock Absorbers from my '65 HIPO Conv? The car is a weekend occasional driver. No road racing, no drag racing, no show.


    I'm looking for a good set of shocks - I will probably paint them Chassis Black before installation.


    Thanks

  • Stock radio conversion to FM

    Auto Custom Sound does NOT have a very good reputation. When I was considering a "hide away" unit for our '69 Z28 I was advised to go with a main-stream unit (Sony, Alpine, Pioneer, etc.) and put it in the glove box.


    This is what I plan on doing with the Mustang. Original radio in dash, modern stereo in the glove box. Updated speakers in the dash and 2 6x9's in boxes on the floor behind the front seats (not much choice of location with a convertible).