The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop What's the best oil for a new crate 350 with 1100 miles?

I'm leaning toward synthetic but I read so many different suggestions I am a bit confused. The first fill was Quaker State 10W40.

As long as its broke in, any oil you like will work. Synthetic oil is not the best to use on new engines not driven yet, its supposedly to slick and it doesn't let the rings seat properly. If the engine has been driven, rings seated, bearings seated, etc.... then use any oil you like. If you are still in the break-in period, then use a mineral oil with some break-in additive added, oil is again your choice. If this engine has a flat tappet camshaft, then use any oil of your choice with additive added (each oil change), till you are tired of buying it. The cam profile and valve spring rate will determine how much additive you will need each oil change. The milder the cam and springs. the less you need. I would use at least half a bottle each oil service with mild cam, full bottle with high horsepower engine.

If this engine has a roller camshaft and lifters, use any oil you like with out additives.

The oil choice depends on what you like, weight doesn't need to be more them 10w40. I have been using 5w30 or 10w30 lately in new engines, the lighter weight splashes around better keeping the cams well lubed, at least in my mind it does.

Joe

Thanks Joe.

This crate is a carbureted 350 with a mild cam and 330 horses.
First crank was April 2012. Mileage is 1604 averaging about 60 miles a month. It's been over two years with the original oil. I just wonder if it should be changed even tho the mileage is so low. Also, do you have a recommendation on what additive would be best to use?

I would change the oil and filter. I would use 10-30, any brand will be good. If you are only driving 60 miles a month the oil gets old way before it breaks down. I have always read that oil should never be left in use over a year even if it doesn't have many miles on it. You shouldn't need any additive if using a name brand oil. You don't put enough miles on to warrant putting in synthetic oil.

I like Comp cams additive, you can get at most auto parts stores. I drive less then 1000 miles a year and my oil is at least three years old. Probably time to change it I guess.

As long as you run the truck long enough to dry out the oil, two to three years shouldn't hurt it. Just be sure to get the truck hot each time you run it. I won't start mine unless I am going somewhere, just cleaning the garage or something like that, I push it out and back in. This also helps keep the exhaust pipe from rusting out. My brother has a '69 barracuda he doesn't drive much, oil in it is going on 10 years + and still looks clear.

Joe

Flat tappet lifters or roller lifters is the big question.

If flat tappet lifters, oils with zinc are mandatory. I use valvoline vr racing oil as the valvoline still has the zinc in it.

The additive is needed when the cam/lifters are new. Once they are broken in the additive is not needed. There are many different ideas on the subject.

A number of years ago, I purchased a new car with a factory turbo.

The magazine articles (pre-internet) contained conflicting information; and local mechanics I asked merely parroted this conflicting information.

I decided to call the manufacturer for guidance.

The secretary (no answering machine ) directed me to the engineer who designed the engine, and I was given some really interesting information concerning oil for turbo engines. Virtually everything being suggested by the magazines and local mechanics was unsuitable!

I followed the engineer's advice on this vehicle, and another of the same I later purchased used. While I still have the vehicle I purchased new, we sold the used vehicle with more than 200k miles, and the engine and turbo still functioning well.

Maybe a call to Chevrolet zone might prove fruitful.

To quote a good friend (Tom V.) who posts on another forum: "Engineers do things for a reason".

Jon.

That wouldn't happen to be Tom Venus, would it?

I use Valvoline VR 5W50,and my engine has 100,000 miles on the clock. not sure what the P.O. used,but the first thing I did,,(1,500 miles ago),was rebuild the head,(hardened seats installed),and bought new lifters. Just a tad bit more insurance. And I add a pint of ZDD,at every change,too,for the same reason.

10W40 is to thick for a new motor. 5 or 10W 30 is better for initial start up and getting that oil film in place.

You do not need any additives. You will add them because you were 'told it needed it' but no high performance production motor uses any additives off the show room. Again, see any production performance car since oh.. the 1950's

Breaking in with synthetic is also fine.

If I repost the proof from a GM lubrication engineer who says exactly what I am staying will you consider it or should I save the effort? Because, as mentioned... the engineers will do things for a reason.

I would like to see that data. Was the data from the engineer written before or after oil formulations were changed to minimize zinc due to emissions changes?

Today's motor oils are not formulated the same as what our fathers used. Since the formulations changed relatively recently talking about a 50 year history is like comparing apples and oranges.

I agree, if it was wrote before 2007, it no longer applies. Oils are different, engines are different, and emission regulations are for sure different.

Reader beware!

Joe

This is an article from GM's Techlink
- Thanks to Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group

So official GM engineer in an official GM publication saying this.


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.

Special thanks to GM's Techlink
- Thanks to Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group

Oil is not 'different'. Its still dino oil with an additives package. The only 'difference' is now that zinc and phosphorus are being REPLACED with other additives that do not harm catalytic converters and o2 sensors, as well as reduce emissions.

Flat tappet motors are still very common (they are called 'inverted bucket' by Ford and modern API oils still meet wear and scuff criteria.

I guess after all this, it means any oil (10W30) will do?

The Bob Olree article is from Dec. 2007.

Here's a May 2008 article that looks at Bob's statements one by one and comes to the conclusion that ZDDP needs to be added. http://zddplus.labecon.com/TechBrie...Just%20Another%20Engine%20Oil%20Myth.pdf

But this is all old data, data to old to use today.

Manufacturers change oil formulations constantly. The only way to be sure is to look at the oil you want to buy and see what the ZDDP level is every time you buy the oil. If you use a flat-tappet cam run an oil that has at least 1000 ppm ZDDP.

Just because the oil you bought for the last oil change had the correct ZDDP levels doesn't at all mean it will the next time you buy it. Caveat Emptore: Buyer Beware.

I would recommend using Valvoline VR1 10W-30:

"Contains 75% higher zinc than SM motor oil with a balanced additive package designed to work in both racing and street-legal applications. This product will protect older style push-rod and flat tappet engines. Valvoline provides this product in both multi and mono viscosity grades: 20w50, straight 50, 10w30, straight 30, straight 40, and straight 60."

Good luck and God Speed

That company that 'made' that PDF is selling a product. Nothing they say is backed up by much proof... yet they turn around and ask the GM Lube engineer for his proof/tests. I'll let GM's own record stand as testimony of how 'right' they are.

That fact that the PDF tries to dispute that synthtic oil, with the 'wrong'(!?!?!) combination of metals will not break in properly is complete and utter hog wash.

"we also know that the ring and engine block materials in engines of different ages and manufacture have very different break-in requirements"

whaa?!?!? ZDDPlus is trying to sell a product with FUD, and more to the point bull poop. Please inform us, oh seller of ZDDPlus what motor has such 'very different' break in requirements?

ZDDPlus uses the term 'virgin oil'.. hahahahaha what's a virgin oil? Mobile 1 Extended Performance 10W-30 and Valvoline Premium SM 10W-30. Please tell me how these SM rated oils are NOT compatible for older motors? Yet they pass the industry standard ASTM test sequence for wear.

I am not going to refute the other 'claims' in that PDF... but trust me, if you think an API SM rated oil is 'bad' for flat tappet motors then just look at all the vintage/antique cars still running by using it. I have 4 myself, all run fine.

Use what you like.. you don't NEED all those additives, that is my point. The oil in 2014 has the same levels of ZDDP as the oil that came in your motor 30-40 years ago.

I will point out this 'gem'. This is ZDDPlus's own words:

"The standards are not intended to infer any degree of backwards compatibility with older or specialty engines."

They said that the API and ASTM tests ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR BACKWARDS compatibility with older motors.

The API CLEARLY says this:

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

"For automotive gasoline engines, the latest ILSAC standard or API Service Category includes the performance properties of each earlier category and can be used to service older engines where earlier category oils were recommended"

Yet we are supposed to ignore THAT and believe ZDDPlus's other claims????

Really??

Didn't learn much did you Jim?
Asking about oil is the worst thing you can do, its a never ending battle between those who use and believe in additives, and those that don't build engines. It always come to this, every single time.

10-30 is a good all around oil, and with your mileage, you made a good choice. I not asking what brand, its your choice and it will just add fuel to the fire.

Joe

Yeah Joe, I had forgotten all the dust-ups I'd seen on the subject in the psst but it's sure fun to watch. I may ask the question in another year or two just for laughs.

It's all a matter of preference. It really doesn't matter what brand or type. The best oil to use is clean oil and change it on a regular basis.

the reason I was given for not using synthetic for break-in was it didn't provide enough "traction" to spin the lifters properly for break-in. This was from crane cams technical support. They recommended using mineral oil for the first 20,000 miles. An inverted bucket lifter is indeed similar in some respects to these type lifters. However it is a 1-1 ratio, which reduces the loading on the cam, a 1.7-1 ratio would make a 100 pound spring produce 170 pounds at the cam, there is no pushrods or rocker arms to present a substantial amount of inertia to overcome, requiring heavier springs to get the same results, reducing the load on the cam even more. Most of these designs are 4 valve heads, requiring valves about half the weight allowing an even lighter spring, and the tops of the buckets are quite a lot larger in diameter than most of the lifters we are used to, allowing a larger base circle. So basically they aren't really comparable at all.

Jim I believe we're all just trying to help by answering the question you posed? Opinions vary, but are shared nonetheless.

I have a buddy who wiped out the cam on a freshly rebuilt stock configured 350 SBC in 2005 and have read about a bunch of other fellas having the same issues: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/flat_tappet_cam_tech/

John,
I believe the first three or four answers were pertinent to the question and will be something I will use when I change oil. After that it just got deep in the weeds, which is SOP whenever the subject of oil is brought up.

Its not a contentious issue at all. People just get offended when their 'beliefs' are proven wrong. I would say that the average person would rather believe what they believe than accept that they are not fully informed.

There is absolutely no basis in fact that synthetic oils are 'more slippery' than dino oils... and I would love to see the manufacturer's statement that claims that. Heck google will tell you in seconds that is hogwash.

People still believe that a crankshaft will 'bend' if stored horizontally... yet the same crank altering forces magically disappear when you stand it upright.

Performance motors have to sell you on the 'ego' of a high HP motor. And admitting that running $12/gal wally world 5W-30 is just as good as VR-1 then that really takes the wind out of the sails of the whole 'performance' thing.

And the kicker... no one has anything to refute the manufactures claims that I post. I'm not saying these things.. GM/Ford etc are. So shooting the messenger is also a way to defend the belief that most people have.

Use what you like.. really, pour in the tears of orphans if you like.. its your motor and your money.

the cheap walmart oils and their bretheren discount oils barely meet the specs, the quality control is poor, they use the cheapest additives to achieve the results desired. They are NOT just as good as a quality name brand oil. Probably adequate for anything we would use on the highway, but that is a false statement. There is plenty of proof that synthetic is "slipperier" many gearbox manufacturers allow a 25% greater load if synthetic is used. You "believe" you are right, but that doesn't mean you are.

My first post in this thread mentioned getting a recommendation from the manufacturer for the specific engine in question.

As that post had nothing to do with a stovebolt six, I did not give specifics, only the suggestion to check with the manufacturer. The engine involved still has nothing to do with a stovebolt six; but DOES have to do with the differences in oils and why they are important.

I have been interested in boosted engines since I was a youngster. In 1979, I special-ordered a turbo-charged four cylinder from that company that rhymes with Cord.

The engineer who was kind enough to answer my call told me that while they recommended the Rotunda brand; ANY brand which then met specification SF BUT NOT specification CD would be acceptable. The specifications are stronger now.

It seems the CD spec could froth at a higher RPM. This particular turbo used crankcase oil to lubricate the turbo. I do not remember the turbine RPM, but it was significantly high enough to cause frothing.

The engineer also suggested that I allow the engine to idle for a minimum of 15 seconds to allow the turbine to "spin down" before turning off the engine; as once the engine were turned off, oil pressure would no longer effect adequate lubrication for the turbo.

I have done the suggested recommendations, with great results; and this particular engine in general does not have a great reliability record. As stated in my first post, I subsequently bought a second vehicle for the wife; and it was sold after some 200k miles and still going strong.

The point I am attempting to make is that differences in oil CAN make a difference in certain instances; and also that there is not one PERFECT answer to a generic question.

Jon.

At this point no one really cares what GM or Ford said, its information that does not apply to any motor on this site. Very few rebuilt engines use factory parts, so what the factory guys tell you only applies to there parts, assembled in there shops, using there oils and break-in practices.

You really think when your Crower, Comp, Lunati, Howards Cam (or any manufactorer) fails, they will stand behind it when you used some other companies advice or oil not recommended by them? Good luck with that!

Call the guy that built the motor you are working on, thats the bottom line, everything else is hear say and opinions. Every year since forever, oil has changed formulas, so why bring up old data?

Jon was right on the money, THERE IS NO PERFECT ANSWER !

Joe

I have researched synthetic oil and I just bought enough for both my vehicals . Go for it. I got mine with a rebate so check that out B4 you just get some if that's what you decide. Also there are I believe two types of synth oil , reg. and long life . Long life goes longer B4 you have to change it. They are now formulated to lub. better than reg.oil.

I would think 11,000 miles every thing should be seated and broak in. NO? He said it had that many miles on it.

I didn't see this link posted and I apologize if it has been.

Here are the GM Performance recommendations for breaking in that 350 HO crate engine. Interesting to note that the break-in period ends at just about 500 miles – and his motor already has 1100…

http://static.speedwaymotors.com/pdf/startupbreakinprocedure.pdf

I'm actually putting this very same engine into my '53 resto-mod over the winter.

Cheers, John