322 Nailhead inspection

[old-tank]

I had to replace a cylinder head on my cross country driver due to a small leak in the combustion chamber (Leaked at an exhaust valve seat that was replaced at rebuild --- long story of a totally dishonest and incompetent machinist and also another example of why exhaust seat inserts can give problems).

Anyhow the inspection: after 80,000 miles the cylinder walls still had hone marks and the cam and lifters were absolutely pristine! There was no sludge in the depressions and only a slight brown stain on shiny metal like the rocker shafts. This car is driven hard: 65-75 mph cruising, usually in the summer with a/c running and engine temperatures between 190 and 220+. Oil is changed at 3-5K miles...Castrol 20w-50. Piston rings were premium moly rings. (tip: this is the same ring set used on Ford, GM, and Chrysler engines with a 4" bore) Engine was assembled with recommended cam lube and only GM EOS added to the initial oil.

My conclusion: you don't need to add no stinkin' zinc to the oil on a 322 nailhead; modern moly rings will do the job and are easy on the cylinder walls; the cylinder heads on a 322 nailhead are much heavier than they used to be...one heavy &*^%$#@&^!

Willie

[TexasJohn55]

Sorry to hear about your misfortune but good to hear your findings were positive. John

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Heavy?? I have noticed that as well.

Glad she was no worse than that. Good for many more Nationals.

Ben

[NTX5467]

I suspect that if you dropped "down" to 10W-40 from 20W-50, you might let a few more horsepowers reach the rear tires, from my experience. Sorry to hear of the cyl head issues, but glad to hear of the "great health" report on the rest of things.

Happy Holidays!

NTX5467

[Airy Cat]

I have run 10W-30 in my Buicks for the last 40 years with no problems.

[buick man]

I have run 10W-30 in my Buicks for the last 40 years with no problems.

O.K. ... But try saying that in 3 years from now after running todays re-spec'd 10W-30 in a flat cam engine.

Here's some info I found along the way so pass it on .....

******* MOTOR OIL WARNING *******.

The newest gasoline engine oil service classification is API:

One of the primary reasons why the EPA wanted to introduce this requirement was the concern that for engines which burned a little oil,the ZDDP (zincdialkylditiophosphate), was poisoning catalytic converters.

The major automotive manufacturers at first stated that there was no bona fide data to confirm this theory.

And even today, it is still debatable. The government calls for catalytic converters to have a minimum useful life of 120,000 miles.

Most catalytic converters have far surpassed that mileage in use without having an abnormal amount of failures due to the so-called poisoning.

ZDDP is the major anti-wear additive in engine oil.

It has been used for decades, it is relatively inexpensive, yet very effective.

With the lowering of ZDDP in some oils, almost nothing in some other oils due to additive drop-out conditions (primarily in semi-synthetic and some synthetic oils), a devastating effect has occurred.

DIESEL SERVICE RATING

The newest diesel engine oil service classification is API: CJ-4, sometimes just referred to as CJ. The major cause of change for this rating was to meet the 2007 Low-Emission Diesel Engines specifications. The concern once again was due to exhaust emissions. It had been determined that on engines using a DPF (diesel particulate filter), it would be plugged up by the heavy metals in the additive package of the engine oils which were graded up to CI-4 plus. The newer diesel emissions systems can reach temperatures as high as 1,600 F. Heavy metal additives destroy the system. Therefore any engine oil prior to CJ-4 which is not formulated for these engines should not be used. According to the new specs for CJ-4, the oil must contain lower levels of ZDDP, Calcium and Phosphorous, it must also not have a TBN any higher than 9. TBN is a measure of the oils alkaline reserve, which is used for fighting off the damaging effects of acid. Diesel oils which are formulated for Low-Emission Engines when used in pre-2007 engines has been reported as having premature bearing wear in as little as 10,000 miles. First showing up on the Ford Power Stroke series 6.0 & 7.3 liter, GMs Duramax, and Dodge / Cummins 5.9 liter engines. Commercial truck and heavy equipment application reports have not yet come in, but if the precursor is any indication, it doesn't look good. Furthermore, if any type of oil additive is used to help the friction modification of these oils, including molybdenum disulfide , they will also poison the system in diesel applications. Independent engine builders recognized the problem almost immediately and started recommending to the industries they serve to use a high-quality oil with zinc in it for anti-wear protection.

Most all of the majors, including those who produce private label engine oil for companies, such as for auto parts stores have changed their formulations to meet SM. You will see it on the shelves at the stores, and from the oil jobbers.

THE BAD NEWS IS....

Hopefully, you will realize the gravity of this situation. If you are involved in the servicing of pre 2007 automobiles, trucks or other equipment, you should continue to use engine oil which is NOT rated SM/CJ-4. More than likely it can be the cause of premature wear in those pre-2007 engines. Actually, as far as engine wear is concerned, it could in fact also cause more wear in the 2007 engines as well, but you increase the possibility of catalytic converter problems when the engine gets to the point in which it starts using a little oil if you use a pre SM grade. Personally, I would think this to be minimal, and would rather replace a catalytic converter than an engine. Many engine builders when first realizing the problem with wear in low ZDDP oils started recommending the use of a good diesel oil in gasoline engines. This recommendation cannot be given any longer unless the diesel specification is CI-4 or previous, and has a full additive package. If the oil is rated SM/CJ, you do not have a full additive package for the older engines. Generally if you see an oil with a label stating For Low-Emission Engines, it will NOT have a full additive package which gives the full protection needed for older engines. You have now heard the bad news about engine oil, as the old saying goes A word to the wise is sufficient.

THE GOOD NEWS IS.....

A completely unprecedented decision concerning new engine oil specifications by Southwestern Petroleum Corporation with their SWEPCO brand 306 Supreme Formula Engine Oil has been made. Usually in the past when a specification rating went into effect, they have been right in there with the new specs and introduced any changes in formulation into the product when it was time to do so. However, in this case, when the specs went into effect last October, they had held back on re-formulating to meet them. I am very pleased to inform our valued customers and prospects that we will continue to provide swepco 306 Supreme Formula Engine Oil with a full-bodied additive package, rated at SL/CI-4 Plus formula in the following weights: 10W30, 15W40 and 20W50. For engines requiring 5W30, it is rated SJ/CI-4. The TBN on this oil is 10.3 vs. the newer 9.0 max for diesel. The detergent, dispersant and anti-wear (zinc) levels are still higher than most other oils on the market rated SL/CI-4. SWEPCO is not going to introduce a SM/CJ product into the market until more testing has been completed and they are able to supply an oil which will surpass the needs of the specification without sacrificing the protection you have come to rely on with SWEPCO lubricants. In any case, it will not be a reformulated 306 oil. The 306 will remain an SL/CI-4 for pre-2007 engines. Update on new, lower additive, engine oil specifications The first casualties of low-to-no ZDDP took place in high-performance gasoline and methanol fueled engines. One case know of flattened three camshafts within a two-month period in a race car situation.

Excessive valve train wear has also been experienced with this oil.

Edited January 9, 2014 by buick man (see edit history)

[old-tank]

My conclusion: you don't need to add no stinkin' zinc to the oil on a 322 nailhead...

Yeah, I thought that is what I said .

SWEPCO probably has some fine lubricants and may even be as good as what I am using. Since I drive my cars to all corners of the country, availability is important too.

This discussion : (http://forums.aaca.org/f115/zinc-motor-oil-338283.html) is to me the most believable after looking inside an 80,000 mile engine!

Probably any available oil will have as much zinc as was present when these cars were contemporary.

NTX --- I 'could' go to a lighter viscosity to free up some hp, but why mess with success.

Willie

[Paul Falabella]

Related to the topic. Just got the valley cover off and while there is a little residual petroleum buildup down there(sludge) the cam looks pretty good. No noticeable groves and pretty shiny. I have used Zinc additive(2 years) but doubt it was used in the past. Don't know for sure, was told 67k miles.

[buick man]

" . . . Probably any available oil will have as much zinc as was present when these cars were contemporary."

No if your oil you get now is off the shelf at the store it does not. Oh and it was much higher back when as well. Not associated with these products but Swepco and Bradpen are two current conformers that we know of after crossing off many, many from our lists just in the past year that no longer conform and have posted this little primer as shown above for those not real familiar with the topic.

Edited January 13, 2014 by buick man (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

Yeah, I thought that is what I said .

SWEPCO probably has some fine lubricants and may even be as good as what I am using. Since I drive my cars to all corners of the country, availability is important too.

This discussion : (http://forums.aaca.org/f115/zinc-motor-oil-338283.html) is to me the most believable after looking inside an 80,000 mile engine!

Probably any available oil will have as much zinc as was present when these cars were contemporary.

NTX --- I 'could' go to a lighter viscosity to free up some hp, but why mess with success.

Willie

I tend to concur with Old-Tank's orientation regarding most-recent zddp levels being similar to what they were in the middle 1950s. From what I've read, zddp and camshaft lobe wear didn't start to be issues until valve lifts and the resultant valve spring seat pressures escalated in the earlier 1960s, when a 7000rpm engine was a "race engine", for example.

In reading the above dialogue on oil, it kind of had the sound of a "sales pitch", which came toward the end. Nothing wrong with selling a product, or advocating it, but it just seemed a little flimsy to me. As for the alleged reduction in zddp in diesel-designed/rated motor oils, from what I've seen on "virgin oil analysis" reports on www.bobistheoilguy.com website, the later diesel oils (dino and syn) still have zddp levels which far exceed what current SL or SM or SN oils have/had, many well past "1200" levels, whereas the current "SM" and "SN" oils are right at "800". Even the older "SL" oils rated for passenger car diesels (with VW and other Euro OEM approvals), in synthetic, were at "1000", as many Mobil1 synthetics for those vehicles are. Yes, I have looked at those oil analysis reports since 2007 and much of what some claim is happening hasn't been validated by the oil reports that I've seen.

Now, if you care to investigate the installation/use instructions for GM's many flat tappet crate motors, you'll discover that they advocate the use of "SM" rated oils (this was several years ago, I suspect it's "SN" or a "Dexos" variation, now, but I haven't looked lately). I also have a copy of the validation report where GM validated the "SM" oil for use with flat tappet motors, if anyone would like to have a copy of that file.

To me, the whole issue of cam lobe wear has seemed to have surfaced when "aftermarket" camshafts were used rather than OEM camshafts. Even in the rebuilder's realm of things, too, not just in the higher-performance realm. To me, this sounds like they did not have as much "hardnening" of the lobes as the OEM cams did. As CompCams now has cams with "more hardness", this kind of bears out my original suspicion. Plus that most cam makers now have their own version of "lube additive" for use.

The OTHER combination in this deal is the valve lifters themselves. They might look the same, but looks can be deceiving, metallurgy-wise. This is one reason that particular camshaft manufacturers will not warranty their camshafts unless THEIR lifters are used. Now, very competent engine builders also know which lifters will last, so THEY can mix/match cams and lifters with no problems, but not every "shadetree" hot rodder might have similar information, only purchasing as THEY might desire (from their peer-mentors experiences, many times).

I also know how much more expensive the factory OEM valve lifters are, compared to "others", plus how much more expensive factory OEM camshafts are compared to "others". But we also know that factory-spec items are designed to live well past 100K miles, too, even back then, provided reasonable care and oil change intervals were administered to the engine.

Now, I'm not sure what the specific differences might be, but I know that when we got "SN" oil in our tanks and then got an oil change in the company vehicles I drive, I noticed an improvement in power over the prior "SM" oils. Enough added power to be noticed in "two-lane blacktop" passing maneuvers at WOT (when seconds count!).

"SN" oil is supposed to result in a .03%+ fuel economy improvement over "SM" oils, but some oils get up to .07% better. Many of those use titanium in the formulation.

From what I've read on the www.bobistheoilguy.com website, just adding zddp to existing motor oil might not be "the trick". There are some NASCAR race oils with huge amounts of zddp in them, but when zddp in increased, so must the other components of the "cleaning" additive package be similar increased. The NASCAR-spec oils only have to last 500miles (although it's a very tough 500 miles!), so long-term cleanliness is not a real issue, unlike a passenger car that sees varied rpms and many hot/cold/hot cycles over several thousand miles of use.

I advocate that everybody really do some research on the whole zddp issue. Bad thing is that there is MUCH information out there, on the Internet, which is VERY DATED and many things have changed since those earlier articles were done! This is why I usually look at the www.bobistheoilguy.com website/forums as it's much more current information and data. I have copies of oil reports which have been posted there, for informational purposes, on my computer, but you can go back several years in the postings, too. I know that SWEPCO and BradPenn have some great products, just as other brands can have similarly-great products. Again, I concur with Old-Tank that availability is an issue with me, too, which I why I've settled on the diesel-designed/spec'd motor oils as they are everywhere, just as Castrol 20W-50 is.

Regards,

NTX5467

[buick man]

...Some good assumption based dissertations - but in the end we think the science speaks harshly for itself. As far as diesel oil usage in a gas motor the ash content historically has been too high unless you want to make frequent oil changes which of course may not be a issue in rarely driven garage queens or seasonal classics. I have a library based on this topic but just throwing out a few tid-bits for the uninitiated among us on this topic. I think the post above I made kinda distills the running science on this topic very well and simply put even though it does sound some what like a "sales pitch" it is based on accumulative science based conclusions that the author is attempting to put out there and giving the reader a route to take in selecting an oil. The reader can then if savy enough go and read the chemical analysis specs for these manufacturers then go and read the analysis of the oils they have been using, if you know what to look for in the process and I think this article gives that needed primer to the reader so they can begin their research on their own. Heres a couple more simple sources to start with:

http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/fuels-and-refining/engine-oil/~/media/Files/Oil-and-Natural-Gas/Engine%20Oil/MOTOR_OIL_GUIDE_2010_120210.ashx

http://www.lnengineering.com/motoroiltestingwhitepaper.pdf

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oils

Edited January 16, 2014 by buick man (see edit history)