X 2 mascherk we do regular yearly long distance trips in Mini's with older engines of around 1500 to 2500 miles sometimes pulling a trailer and drive them daily with regular 20w 50 oil and no noticeable problems.

I'm not asking for absolute proof, but I'm curious. Has anyone had experience with lifter failure or cam failure that might have been traceable to oil choice?

Years ago when the lack ZDDP was first brought up on the internet as a problem the examples given were high performance V8s with cams failing within a few hundred miles of rebuild. Warnings were generally about ZDDP during the break-in phase of a rebuilt engine.

Just curious.

Kelley

I'm afraid not; our 'flat tappet' engines-even for 'road use,' do not take kindly to the 'newest'-API SM and particulary the latest 'SN' oil--which itself, appears not to benefit even by ones purchase & adding a bottle of  'zinc'phosphate' [zddp]. 

I was just lurking, but have really enjoyed this, and got some great information too!

Jim

I use Brad Penn Grade 1 20w50 in all my A-series motors. It not only has zddp but it has the propper level of zddp that push rod engines require. Vr1 no longer has the proper level. Additives don't properly mix with the oil therefor don't offer as much protection. 

I ordered a case from Amazon - with free shipping to CA. Took about a week to get it.

Thanks for the entertainment blokes. Only 15 posts and I got all your panties in a twist. Got bigger fish to fry, so long Sir Bobby Sands

I think I found Gary Burbank:

//youtu.be/CjgEFHyL7jQ

Wow. jwc914 (no-one even knows who you are). I spent 12 years designing and engineering transmissions, but have never heard anyone do such a bogus and useless test. We didn't even do abuse tests that way. I also forget we are talking about Oil here - so I guess Gary from burbank was doing this test just to make sure that the trans had the right oil according to your logic? Must be one clever guy if he can accertain what oil is used. If some joker did that to any car I was selling he'd be walking back.

You have 15 posts, and are coming on here, telling folks who know more than you ever will "how it is", and also threatening to sue them?

You sir, are already a laughing stock. Yes, that right folks are pointing and laughing. At you. You have zero respect on here, and never will. You will never recover from this.

Damn, I promised myself I wouldn't read any more of this c$%p....

Cheers, Ian

Dan Moffet, this is called a "shock Load Test" and in a few minutes you will have a huge database pf real time results. front and rear flank shear load calcs will be irrevalent after this test

Well put Dan...I wouldn't want him test driving any car of mine either, regardless of what oil I had in it.

Now I'm curious about what this test is supposed to 'test'. The discussion is about oil and it ability to proect an engine and transmission. By max-loading a car and pounding the daylights out of the engine and transmission, the only test of the oil I can see is whether it says in the engine when parts get thrown off.

By fully loading the car, and working the engine to its torque and rpm limit. one could have a rough idea of how it pulls... if the rest of the drive train holds up... and it doesn't bend a rod or throw a valve. (Torque is better assessed in higher gears, but that's beside the point).

By holding the engine to its rev limit under load, then depressing the clutch with the throttle wide open only would encourage valve lift and piston strain, increasing the chance of misfortune.

But to then crash the transmission back in to first (with or without synchromesh, with or without disengaging the clutch) would guarantee damage to gear teeth and synchros and invite the engine to be spun at about twice its capable limit. Lots of things inside the engine to be broken there... valve stems, springs, timing chains, main rods, wrist pins, pistons... to impose severe loads on gear teeth and bearings, differential gears and pins, universal joints, CV joints, engine and frame mounts and even suspension components.

I dunno who "Gary from Burbank" is/was but I suspect he either didn't buy any of the cars he tested... or whateve he did buy didn't last very long if he drove them that way. If I ever met him I wouldn't let him test my car, and I'd never even sell him even a clapped out car. That kind of abuse is terrible.

Either your memory or your description are in error.

BTW, I have been driving a LOOONG time and am quite capable of driving without using he clutch up and down through gears, including first gear on a non-synchro Mini 850, so am not afraid to shift clutchless when necessary. However, I do know that not using the clutch invites excessive wear on shifter forks, synchros and gear teeth. Clutches are cheaper than gearboxes, and beyond that, Kieth Calver pointed out that engine/clutch braking isn't a particulary good idea as brake pads are much cheaper than clutch disks.

Oh, and don't waste your time trying to sue Cooper Tune. When he said "Benn, I'm thinking...." he was ONLY expressing his opinion. not defaming anyone.

PS: Gearboxes don't "shear long molecules" Gears work in compression, not shear. The length of the longest molecules is smaller than the space between two gear teeth faces when fully loaded. Long molecules are created and broken down by heat. Really high heat. Chemicals break molecules by chemical reaction.

Cooper Tune, Please respond with the name and address of your lawyer. That comment will cost you some money. You are all entitled to your opinion but you have not presented a single fact that supports your claim

Try it for yourself. then you will have some real world data. we usted to do this all the time with 50 wt Castrol and never broke a box. went through a lot of motormounts and stabiliser bushings. This test will prove everything from valve spring to diff

Ok, I can't stand the mystery.....what the f*** is this "test" supposed to prove, and how does it simulate ANYTHING a gearbox would see in the real world?