Builds "Scout" the 1977 FJ40

[Honger]

Good luck with it, I had to take it in multiple shifts. I believe that his information and testing methodology is sound. I also don't believe he has any motivation to sway someone the wrong way... but yes I think some of the things he says are pretty outlandish....

Like this...
"The details of the specific test equipment set-up I developed, as well as the details of the specific test procedure I developed, that provide the accuracy and repeatability that I demand, are Proprietary Intellectual Property."

Pretty outlandish.

It sounds like his method is taking two pieces of metal, coated in oil, at a given high temperature, applying a given bearing pressure, and shearing the metal against each other's faces until he experiences damage to the metal pieces. At which point he assigns a PSI wear resistance value. I'm postulating a bit because his actual means/methods are Proprietary Intellectual Property™. But it seems like an obviously valid way to test motor oil and find out ONE characteristic about it.

Where he rubs me wrong is in dismissing the chemical engineering inputs to motor oil as well as his dismissal of all other testing (oil producers and motor manufacturers) as not having relevance in light of his testing. It isn't that he says they are all invalid so much as he says that ultimately only his results give you info worth making a decision on. Yes, he's an engineer and we can often be over-exuberant in presenting our "Eureka" moments. But sheesh. The motor oil companies AND the motor manufacturers work hand-in-hand with lots of real world testing (ie. using real motors with oil in them) that go beyond laboratory measurements AND Blackstone. They will actually take engines to failure to understand both mechanical and chemical properties. But if I were to say anything like this to him he'd say I'm an armchair mechanical engineer with no credentials... cause he actually says that categorically about anyone who questions his info.

I'm not saying his testing is bunk. It presents one bit of helpful data. I'm also not saying the Quaker State he's recommending is a poor choice. It's clearly a well-regarded motor oil.

BUT, I also think the collected wisdom of the 2F engine owners and rebuilders here on the forum are also a great place for helpful data. And that data is based on multiple owners, trying multiple oils, on nearly-identical motors to my own. People on this forum having been sending their oil in to Blackstone... they've been cutting open oil filters and sharing pics... they've been gathering data as well.

Just another engineer's two cents. Note, I'm a civil engineer, NOT a mechanical engineer.

 

[kerplunk]

I'm going through the blog now... quotes like this aren't reassuring:
"My advice is, ignore any critics of my Blog, because they have always been wrong, and cannot be trusted. They are not Engineers, they don’t have Credentials, they don’t have in-depth real world experience with engines, and they have never done any testing themselves."

I'm a licensed professional engineer... I'd never say sometime like this. Yeesh!

That said, he has done some solid testing. Pretty good info... but I'm not switching oil yet. I'm only about 20% through it now.

Science, as a process, needs to be open to be reviewed.

Telling me the results of your experiment are really pretty worthless without understanding the experiment.

I started reading this guy's blog and got annoyed enough at his grandstanding I didn't make it past the first page or so.

Of particular concern to me selecting oil is oxidation within the engine. Dissimilar metals being in contact with each other... Lead and Iron, aluminum, etc. Which is probably a big reason for using Zinc?

And how sticky the oil is. I expect it to coat the inside of my engine and displace water...

In Western Washington, without a top on, my FJ40 hasn't been started in several months now (last August?). I'm really more concerned about the oil in it preventing the engine from seizing due to rust at this point!!!

But there is also oil's "cleaning" ability, breaking down and capturing things like carbon from blow by, etc... While also not dissolving gaskets. I've also read that some high mileage formulated oil contains additives to "stick" on gaskets and minimize leaks... (cause I'm lazy).

I'm sure and oil pushed out by Quaker State would be highish quality. Maybe not worth a premium price if there is one? 5w-30 should be fine in Western Washington climate, especially in winter. Not sure of the "science", but am used to seeing many newer cars using 5w-30 that have aluminum blocks, which would not deviate in size as much as Iron in heat.... (I had thought conventinal wisdom was that heavier oil would stay in larger gaps / worn bearings / hot engines that stay expanded?, etc...)

 

[77CruiserDog]

This is so perfect! This is exactly what this forum is for. I agree with so much that is being said!! My one question is this... is there another tester, or forum or oil analysis place where we can get a second set of results to compare the ones from this blog I posted about? I'd really like to get a second opinion based in science that is open to the public to see testing methods and repeatable attempts and so forth... Is anyone aware of anything like that? Hopefully easier to read? HA!

 

[77CruiserDog]

Like this...
"The details of the specific test equipment set-up I developed, as well as the details of the specific test procedure I developed, that provide the accuracy and repeatability that I demand, are Proprietary Intellectual Property."

Pretty outlandish.

It sounds like his method is taking two pieces of metal, coated in oil, at a given high temperature, applying a given bearing pressure, and shearing the metal against each other's faces until he experiences damage to the metal pieces. At which point he assigns a PSI wear resistance value. I'm postulating a bit because his actual means/methods are Proprietary Intellectual Property™. But it seems like an obviously valid way to test motor oil and find out ONE characteristic about it.

Where he rubs me wrong is in dismissing the chemical engineering inputs to motor oil as well as his dismissal of all other testing (oil producers and motor manufacturers) as not having relevance in light of his testing. It isn't that he says they are all invalid so much as he says that ultimately only his results give you info worth making a decision on. Yes, he's an engineer and we can often be over-exuberant in presenting our "Eureka" moments. But sheesh. The motor oil companies AND the motor manufacturers work hand-in-hand with lots of real world testing (ie. using real motors with oil in them) that go beyond laboratory measurements AND Blackstone. They will actually take engines to failure to understand both mechanical and chemical properties. But if I were to say anything like this to him he'd say I'm an armchair mechanical engineer with no credentials... cause he actually says that categorically about anyone who questions his info.

I'm not saying his testing is bunk. It presents one bit of helpful data. I'm also not saying the Quaker State he's recommending is a poor choice. It's clearly a well-regarded motor oil.

BUT, I also think the collected wisdom of the 2F engine owners and rebuilders here on the forum are also a great place for helpful data. And that data is based on multiple owners, trying multiple oils, on nearly-identical motors to my own. People on this forum having been sending their oil in to Blackstone... they've been cutting open oil filters and sharing pics... they've been gathering data as well.

Just another engineer's two cents. Note, I'm a civil engineer, NOT a mechanical engineer.

Such a great response and yes, I agree. If you don't share your testing process, it's not open or unbiased which makes it really hard to believe at face value.

I'm curious if anyone knows about another testing company or forum that just compares different types of motor oil. And, how their results compare to what this guy has found.

Ultimately, I think keeping it fresh and clean with a quality filter will yeild a long life even if we were to use one of the lower ranked oils. This engine is sort of forgiving... And let's be honest, if we're reading/writing and posting pictures about our rigs, it's likely we're caring for them at a higher level than anyone at Toyota intended. So I think either way we go, zinc or no zinc.... higher ranking oil or whatever is on sale at an auto parts store, we're probably just fine in terms of wear.

 

[77CruiserDog]

Solid move. I've followed some solid forum threads in the past on people testing different oils in their vehicles and sending in tests to Blackstone. What's truly great about such testing is that you get to see exactly how your oil performs over time based on your local conditions... fuel available, your driving style, your ambient environment. One thing that bugs me is that the blog engineer basically dismisses such testing.

Yeah I'm keen to know what my oil looks like after a few thousand miles. Honestly, I'll maybe only put 2,000 miles on this rig in a year. I know from working at Honda/Acura for a number of years that time breaks down oil just as much as mileage does. I agree, it's odd that he dismisses the Blackstone testing of oil because it's clearly valuable information. I'll still do it on both my Land Cruisers once I get the test kits. I might even grab a 3rd kit to test the oil in my 2020 Tundra. It's supposed to be able to run the oil for a longer mileage interval but I've been putting so many miles on my 60 that the Tundra wasn't even driven a single mile in 4 months, so I'm curious how the results come back.

I think I'll give the Quaker State full synthetic 5W-30 a solid try. Even with all of the strikes against this "oil engineer" I'm willing to believe his results. I do simply wish that his testing was open however, so we could see what he is doing to the oil and how it's being tested.

 

[77CruiserDog]

Awesome! I'm excited for the results.

I just want to call out though that the zinc additive is designed to coat engine components and provide protection from cold starts, highways miles, and high revs.

What we need is to have 2 insane mudders with fresh 350s do a 1200 mile road trip. Then we rip out the cam and lifters and have a look. Who's in?!!

That would be fantastic. I'm not sure exactly what role zinc plays in the anti wear package... I do know it's one of many components.

I will say that the newer engines with tighter tolerances seem to reccomend these newer lighter weight synthetic oils. I am aware of the differences between the newer engines and the old tractor motor we use but I guess what I'm really curious about is can these older 2F engines benefit from the newer oils?? I wish there was more transparency but I also know testing is probably really difficult to do properly... and like @Honger says, the difference between some of these is just splitting hairs. I'm guessing that if one chose an engine oil anywhere in the top of the rankings, the 2F wouldn't know much of a difference.

 

[77CruiserDog]

Two more pieces of information that I'll share about engine oil. 1 that I tried and 1 that I'm going to try.

First, when I worked at Acura, we had a problem with the Legend engine getting lifter noise if the oil wasn't changed often enough. We had a tech who would reccomend doing 3 oil changes in quick succession 500-1000 miles each with 1 quart of transmission fluid substituted for a quart of oil. It worked really well. Incidentally this same tech and pretty much everyone I've talked with in the automotive industry feels like the traditional flushes you can buy to thin out your oil like Seafoam or the like is a great way to destroy your engine.

Each time we had a client who had this 1 quart of ATF oil change performed, their lifter noise was gone by the 3rd oil change and the oil we drained out would be really dark even after only going 500 miles. I did this in Falcor when I first got it but just for one oil change and only idling and I also didn't substitute the quart, I just added one quart of ATF and let it idle for a half hour or so. When I checked the dipstick before adding the ATF the oil was still clean because it was fairly new only 1000 miles or so, but after idling for 30 minutes with the ATF it was so incredibly black. I'm assuming that the ATF cleaned up some of the deposits that engine had developed over the years. I'll find out what the top end looks like when I replace the valve stem seals in a week.... which leads me to the next item.

I'm going to grab some pictures of how it looks when I pull my valve cover off to replace the valve stem seals and then run the Quaker State 5W-30 in Falcor for 3,000 miles and the pull the valve cover again to do a valve adjustment. I'm curious if I'll see any differences as the additives in the newer synthetic oils (as I understand it) do perform some cleaning action better than conventional oils. I don't expect to see a difference but sheesh, who knows right?

 

[77CruiserDog]

Here is what an engine oil test should look like.... https://www.bestsynthetic.com/G3115.pdf

Or here for the condenced version... What is the best synthetic motor oil? - https://www.bestsynthetic.com/best-synthetic-motor-oil.shtml

And one more.... AMSOIL Comparative Testing - https://www.thebestoil.com/resources/amsoil-comparative-testing/

 

[Honger]

This is so perfect! This is exactly what this forum is for. I agree with so much that is being said!! My one question is this... is there another tester, or forum or oil analysis place where we can get a second set of results to compare the ones from this blog I posted about? I'd really like to get a second opinion based in science that is open to the public to see testing methods and repeatable attempts and so forth... Is anyone aware of anything like that? Hopefully easier to read? HA!

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) does have standardized procedures and reporting requirements for motor oils. Here's a website with a pretty thorough listing of them.

Engine Oil Lubricant ASTM Tests | The Petroleum Quality Institute of America

pqia.org

We use ASTM tests and reporting for concrete and asphalt (among other things) in my field. The ASTM standards are based on input from material suppliers, installing contractors, and design engineers. They are agreed to by all parties and utilized accordingly. A material supplier alone would want tests that only grade the material at it's origination point... but a contractor would only want tests that reflect in-situ conditions... and an engineer would specify that tests that prioritize finished condition prior to use. But together, they agree to tests that satisfy all concerns... manufacturing capabilities, means and methods of placement/workability, AND pavement life.

I don't know much about the PQIA (linked site above) but we have asphalt and concrete institutes/organizations in our industry that prioritize making the materials the best... from specification, to manufacturing, to installation, to lifecycle.

Oil Suppliers, Engine Manufacturers, Mechanical Engineers, Chemical Engineers, and End Users all have a stake in how oils are tested/used. The industry is pretty capable of addressing that it seems... very similar to my own.

I'd counter the oil engineer's perspective on his test revealing big differences with the anecdote of Consumer Reports doing a comparative oil test in NYC taxi cabs. What they found is that the type/brand/additives mattered very little. Routine maintenance with the manufacturer-recommended viscosity yielded the best results in terms of engine life. Those are the results I'd expect from a competitive industry with standardized testing/reporting methods.

 

[77CruiserDog]

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) does have standardized procedures and reporting requirements for motor oils. Here's a website with a pretty thorough listing of them.

Engine Oil Lubricant ASTM Tests | The Petroleum Quality Institute of America

pqia.org

We use ASTM tests and reporting for concrete and asphalt (among other things) in my field. The ASTM standards are based on input from material suppliers, installing contractors, and design engineers. They are agreed to by all parties and utilized accordingly. A material supplier alone would want tests that only grade the material at it's origination point... but a contractor would only want tests that reflect in-situ conditions... and an engineer would specify that tests that prioritize finished condition prior to use. But together, they agree to tests that satisfy all concerns... manufacturing capabilities, means and methods of placement/workability, AND pavement life.

I don't know much about the PQIA (linked site above) but we have asphalt and concrete institutes/organizations in our industry that prioritize making the materials the best... from specification, to manufacturing, to installation, to lifecycle.

Oil Suppliers, Engine Manufacturers, Mechanical Engineers, Chemical Engineers, and End Users all have a stake in how oils are tested/used. The industry is pretty capable of addressing that it seems... very similar to my own.

I'd counter the oil engineer's perspective on his test revealing big differences with the anecdote of Consumer Reports doing a comparative oil test in NYC taxi cabs. What they found is that the type/brand/additives mattered very little. Routine maintenance with the manufacturer-recommended viscosity yielded the best results in terms of engine life. Those are the results I'd expect from a competitive industry with standardized testing/reporting methods.

Spoken like a true engineer.... I can say that because my wife is an electrical engineer.

Great find on that link. I also found some information sort of referencing the fact that "Blackstone distilled all of the oil information only to find nearly identical results from what Consumer Reports found a decade before."

So in the end, while I tend to nerd out about "which one is best", ultimately keeping up on maintenance is far more important.

 

[77CruiserDog]

Spoken like a true engineer.... I can say that because my wife is an electrical engineer.

Great find on that link. I also found some information sort of referencing the fact that "Blackstone distilled all of the oil information only to find nearly identical results from what Consumer Reports found a decade before."

So in the end, while I tend to nerd out about "which one is best", ultimately keeping up on maintenance is far more important.

One last question on the subject because I think this is getting in to "beating a dead horse" territory....

Is there a definitive answer on whether or not our engines should be using a zinc additive?

 

[rainingagain]

One last question on the subject because I think this is getting in to "beating a dead horse" territory....

Is there a definitive answer on whether or not our engines should be using a zinc additive?

Man, this is why I regretted making my original comment but there's been some good discussion. I've had this argument so many times LOL. But my experience is primarily with American V8s. IMO it's necessary. To many others, it is not. It's weird how everyone has their own informed opinion but I suppose it's that nuance again where this is not black and white. I'll be honest and say, I don't know how it would effect a straight six. Flat tappet, similar valve spring compression strength, so I would assume it's the same principle. For me, I'm gonna use it because I have seen first hand the damage done even though I don't know with 100% certainty that it's need for our old tractor engines.

I don't think you'll get a definite answer, but maybe we should start a long living pole where we simply ask, which of you mudders are using a zinc additive, a high zinc oil, or only a high quality oil? I'd be interested in the results. It's still and opinion based conclusion so we can't answer the original question, but the results may be surprising. Not many people are aware that zinc was removed. I would surmise it's because pretty much any car after say mid-90s with modern cats is fine with modern oils but who knows??

 

[77CruiserDog]

Man, this is why I regretted making my original comment but there's been some good discussion. I've had this argument so many times LOL. But my experience is primarily with American V8s. IMO it's necessary. To many others, it is not. It's weird how everyone has their own informed opinion but I suppose it's that nuance again where this is not black and white. I'll be honest and say, I don't know how it would effect a straight six. Flat tappet, similar valve spring compression strength, so I would assume it's the same principle. For me, I'm gonna use it because I have seen first hand the damage done even though I don't know with 100% certainty that it's need for our old tractor engines.

I don't think you'll get a definite answer, but maybe we should start a long living pole where we simply ask, which of you mudders are using a zinc additive, a high zinc oil, or only a high quality oil? I'd be interested in the results. It's still and opinion based conclusion so we can't answer the original question, but the results may be surprising. Not many people are aware that zinc was removed. I would surmise it's because pretty much any car after say mid-90s with modern cats is fine with modern oils but who knows??

I'm really glad you did respond. I think the feedback that everyone had was super valuable. I too was skeptical of the information in that blog, but blindly figured that this engineer tested the oils and knew what he was talking about... but what was brought to my attention, without the actual tests he performed indicated it's just not useful information. Why make a list of oils if you're not going to let all of the hard work be open and transparent?

I think that idea of posting a thread dedicated to asking about this is a great idea, I might just do it. I'm also worried it might open pandora's box. HA! People get funny when their ideals are questioned.

I'm reading more and more about how some ZDDP is good, too much can cause a problem as it creates an acidic reaction to certain metals. I wonder why it's so difficult to find a hard and fast answer about this.

 

[77CruiserDog]

Man, this is why I regretted making my original comment but there's been some good discussion. I've had this argument so many times LOL. But my experience is primarily with American V8s. IMO it's necessary. To many others, it is not. It's weird how everyone has their own informed opinion but I suppose it's that nuance again where this is not black and white. I'll be honest and say, I don't know how it would effect a straight six. Flat tappet, similar valve spring compression strength, so I would assume it's the same principle. For me, I'm gonna use it because I have seen first hand the damage done even though I don't know with 100% certainty that it's need for our old tractor engines.

I don't think you'll get a definite answer, but maybe we should start a long living pole where we simply ask, which of you mudders are using a zinc additive, a high zinc oil, or only a high quality oil? I'd be interested in the results. It's still and opinion based conclusion so we can't answer the original question, but the results may be surprising. Not many people are aware that zinc was removed. I would surmise it's because pretty much any car after say mid-90s with modern cats is fine with modern oils but who knows??

I did find an interesting article... I'm not going to the SAE site to buy it for $33 but here's a summary that was written. Engine oil mythology debunked, and ZDP content - https://www.steelsoldiers.com/threads/engine-oil-mythology-debunked-and-zdp-content.16019/

 

[Honger]

I've researched the ZDP stuff at length several years ago, here's what I remember...

It's widely accepted that higher zinc content is ideal for flat tappet pushrod engines. From what I gathered it's actually a sacrificial material in compressive loading issues such as at the pushrods to the lobes on the cam. It makes sense because most of the loading an oil sees in the engine is shear forces, not compression. From what I remember reading the zinc hangs around longer on those surfaces and gets crushed in the compressive load situation which absorbs the load and reduces wear on the actual steel parts surfaces.

Also what I remember reading on this was additives aren't the best solution because they do affect the original chemistry of the oil formulation you start with. Other additives that may be in the original oil weren't designed to have a bunch of ZDP also added in. While overseas I settled on using diesel motor oil that had some higher zinc content (as I couldn't find the Valvoline VR1 over there) and once moving to the States I switched to the Valvoline VR1. These oils have a higher ZDP content and are originally formulated accordingly.

Also, if I recall, 1400 ppm is the sweet spot... which VR1 matches up with.

 

[Honger]

I think that idea of posting a thread dedicated to asking about this is a great idea, I might just do it. I'm also worried it might open pandora's box. HA! People get funny when their ideals are questioned.

I like this idea... had thought of doing this already just to get the conversation out of your thread. That said, it's good tech either way!

 

[77CruiserDog]

I like this idea... had thought of doing this already just to get the conversation out of your thread. That said, it's good tech either way!

Yeah I don't mind one bit.... it's certainly good tech and I imagine people will find it useful someday. Thank you for adding to it! You brought huge value. Based on what I have read, additional ZDDP isn't necessary but adding a bit couldn't hurt. The ZDDP already in the oil wear additives package has been tested to be more than safe for our needs.

It's possibe when there is a very sharp cam profile or a high valve spring rate that more zinc might be needed. I trust the information extrapolated from that SAE article far more than I do from the blog I originally posted. I have you to thank for that, Honger. Pointing to the fact that the specific tests should match what the industry standard is in order to be taken seriously.

 

[77CruiserDog]

I've researched the ZDP stuff at length several years ago, here's what I remember...

It's widely accepted that higher zinc content is ideal for flat tappet pushrod engines. From what I gathered it's actually a sacrificial material in compressive loading issues such as at the pushrods to the lobes on the cam. It makes sense because most of the loading an oil sees in the engine is shear forces, not compression. From what I remember reading the zinc hangs around longer on those surfaces and gets crushed in the compressive load situation which absorbs the load and reduces wear on the actual steel parts surfaces.

Also what I remember reading on this was additives aren't the best solution because they do affect the original chemistry of the oil formulation you start with. Other additives that may be in the original oil weren't designed to have a bunch of ZDP also added in. While overseas I settled on using diesel motor oil that had some higher zinc content (as I couldn't find the Valvoline VR1 over there) and once moving to the States I switched to the Valvoline VR1. These oils have a higher ZDP content and are originally formulated accordingly.

Also, if I recall, 1400 ppm is the sweet spot... which VR1 matches up with.

Yeah, I read that too, additives to the oil may not play well with others already in there. It's all about when the blending is done and some additives can't be effectively added later.

The Quaker State Full Synthetic has only 900 PPM of ZDDP but since the VR1 was so close in wear properties, that might be my next oil.

 

[Honger]

I think that idea of posting a thread dedicated to asking about this is a great idea, I might just do it. I'm also worried it might open pandora's box. HA! People get funny when their ideals are questioned.

Couldn't help myself... just started a thread about motor oil for F/2F folks.
Go vote in the poll and weigh-in as needed.

 

[77CruiserDog]

Couldn't help myself... just started a thread about motor oil for F/2F folks.
Go vote in the poll and weigh-in as needed.

Heck yeah! And I'm reading the hell out of your 70 build thread right now. I don't have a 70 but if I squint really hard I can pretend I'm as cool as 70 owners.