The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop What to use for oil?

I have a 46 with a 235 in it it. It was running when I got it, but then we started the restoration. The engine was already gone through. Anyway, I am getting ready to fire her up and wonder what weight oil to use. I will only be driving her in temps above 50 degrees. Also what to use in trans. and rear end? She has the old mechanical 2 speed. Thanks to anyone who could lend me a hand

Any good non detergent 30 if you're not running a fliter 30 detergent if running a fliter.

It wouldn't hurt to put some Lucas oil treatment in it.

It might not help either Ron. As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of oil additives. About the only additive that I would consider using is one containing ZDDP (zinc dialkyl dithio phosphate) and even then it might not be needed. Contrary to the myth that it has been removed altogether, previously the Phosphorus levels in oil were in the range of 1400-1500 ppm the new regulations limit the zinc to below 800 ppm, a reduction of about 50%.

If you read the Service manuals and Operating manuals of these engines S.A.E. 20W or 20 are the heaviest oils that are recommended. And for cold weather 10W or 5W oils depending on the temp.
If I were running straight weight oil I would not use anything heavier than these. Straight weight lubricating oils are getting hard to find and if you choose to go with a multigrade, 5W20 motor oil would be ideal choice but it was really only produced to increase the CAFÉ reported to the Feds.
Here’s the but, that grade is now also getting hard to find, I’ve seen a few oil companies still sells it for those that demand it, even though most don’t recommend it. Now days 99% of the cars use 5W30 so 99% of the shelves in automotive sections of the big box stores are stocked with 5W30.
Can you use 5W30 in your 216/235 engines? Of course you can, the fuel mileage might suffer by a tenth of a mile per gallon over the S.A.E. 20 if you could accurately control the test, but I doubt any one of us could detect the difference in normal driving.
Detergent? Yep, great discovery keeps the engines clean and keeps the crud in suspension till you drain the oil out. Also you don’t take the chance of getting one big slug of crap being sucked up from the bottom of the pan.
Any additives that are needed to improve oil performance are already included in todays name brand motor oils. And I am a big supporter of the synthetics if the engine isn’t an oil burner. There is just to much information that point to the reduction in wear and friction in an engine using synthetic motor oil.
Denny Graham
Sandwich, IL

WE b OLD and Denny, for the 50 years or so that I have been interested in the car hobby one of the subjects I have followed with great interest is people's theories about oil. I have heard that ATF, STP, Lucas, Marvel Mystery Oil and other substances should be added to motor oil.

My question is, is it really likely that the lubrication engineers who design and test lubricants are missing the obvious things that even an amateur would recognize?

And what about the reviews of these substances like the review that Consumer Reports did on STP in the 1960s? CR found that the [u]only[u] effect of STP was to change the viscosity of motor oil. STP stock dropped in value after that and has never recovered.

As for synthetic oil, everything I have read that was published by actual testing facilities indicates that synthetic oil has the advantages of flowing at extremely low temperatures and being more stable than petroleum oil at very high temperatures. Temperatures reached by Indy car engines running at 10,000 RPM for 500 miles but never reached in street use.

Being a curious person I'm always interested in these theories [u]and[u] the testing and science behind them. Can you guys please fill me in on the testing and science behind the claimed benefits of oil additives and synthetic oil in low compression, low RPM street engines?

Hey Yar, I am not an advocate of oil additives nor am I any kind of expert but I have become sold on synthetic oils due to years dealing with motorcycle problems and have seen the improved results of switching to synthetics. I also have revived an old engine or two with the help of Marvel mystery oil. When left sitting for many years there is sometimes a need to break the rings free of the cylinder walls. It will do the trick, smokes like a chimney for awhile though.

I think you need to re-read my post Yar, I think you may have missed my point altogether.
As I said, "About the only additive that I would consider using is one containing ZDDP (zinc dialkyl dithio phosphate) and even then it might not be needed." Might not be needed because it is still in some oils. Any flat tappet cam or sliding surface would benefit from the higher levels of ZDDP, even the old mutts that we drive. If you believe that the only engines that can benefit from synthetics are high revving racing engines, then that's your prerogative. But it just stands to reason that a lubricant that will reduce heat, friction and wear in a racing engine or a new car engine will also benefit an older engine.
Here is what a few of the “experts” have to about that subject:
Mobil: 1) https://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Myths.aspx
2) http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English...il_for_Vehicles_Mechanical_Pushrods.aspx
Amsoil: http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/amo.aspx?zo=356673
Pennzoil: http://www.pennzoil.com/#/about-motor-oil/
Valvoline: http://www.valvoline.com/car-care/motor-oil-myths/
And there are hundreds more like this if one really cares to search them out.
We all have our own belief’s based on our own experience, so do some reading and make up your own mind.
Denny Graham
Sandwich, IL

Denny, thank you very much for sending me those links. I will read them all. I devour stuff like that.

One of my favorite articles was a motorcycle magazine test of spark plugs. The motorcycle industry would like riders and racers like me to think that "motorcycle" plugs are somehow different. The magazine tested an engine on a dyno and on the track with every plug that could get their hands on. There was no significant difference on the dyno or on the track. The magazine concluded "Buy the spark plugs "THAT PERFORM BEST AT THE CASH REGISTER".

The motorcycle industry tries to promote the same hocus pucus concerning 2 and 4 stroke motor oil. Since I raced 2-strokes from 1968 through 2001, I was focused on 2-stroke oil. While others were using very expensive "Motorcycle" oils mixed at ratios of 50 or 60:1, I was running Castrol 2-stroke oil costing $1.68 a quart at 20:1. I rode their bikes and felt no performance difference.

The difference I did see was their failed connecting rods and crankpins and bearings that had turned blue from excessive heat and lack of lubrication. I got some really close looks at those parts because they used to bring me the failed parts and the rod kits so I could rebuild and align their crankshafts in my home shop.

When I disassembled my own race engines to check the condition of the lower end parts after each race season I found parts wet with oil and in perfect condition. Only piston rings showed wear after a year of racing. I did also replace the pistons to avoid the possibility of failure from metal fatigue.

My point is that there is a lot of hype about Cadillac (expensive) solutions to Chevrolet challenges.

As one of my stockbroker friends says out of earshot of others "The way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your wallet". I do that by avoiding unnecessarily expensive stuff. Maybe I'll feel differently after reading the links you sent. Thanks again for doing that.

I'm going to have to disagree with that, Denny. many late model vehicles (say, last 10 years) are calling for 5W20 as the preferred grade. Ford has specified it since at least '98 on some models, all vehicles by 2000. Honda, Toyota, and Chrysler also specify 5W20. In the case of the Chryslers with the Multi-Displacement setup, use of anything but 5W20 will disable the system, as it is very sensative to the oil viscosity. GM seems to be the only real holdout on 5W20, calling for 5W30 in pretty much all of their gas engines.
Something that's coming down the line (next 2 years) will be 0W20 full synthetic (yes, ZERO). Toyota is already suggesting it for use in their passenger car engines, and I've heard from a reliable source that it will be the required oil in Toyotas by '12.
On topic, I use straight 30 Valvoline Super HPO in the '55, still redily available at most parts stores, plus the local TSC that about a mile from my house carries it. I did try 10W30 (which I use in my '85 S10), but the 235 seemed to run "happier", for lack of a better term, on the 30.

OK you guys have me all confused.... I was under the thought that 10 W 30 was best for a 59 235. You say straight 30 is "Happier" how? less valve noise? longevity?
By the way, my hemi sounds like a darn steam locomotive on 5W20 after 2k miles without an oil change...

I'm only speaking for my engine in particular, which is not stock by any means. I did originally run it on 10w30 after the break in, and it ran fine. But it just seemed to perform better on 30, can't really explain it. The lifters are quiter with 30, not much, but definetly quiter.
As far as a stock 235, 10W50 will be just fine.

Denny, I checked those links you sent. The Valvoline site is down for repairs and the rest are advertizing copy put out by the oil companies promoting their most expensive motor oil products.

That hardly qualifies as "unbiased" product reviews.

From what I have read in unbiased reviews, I would liken synthetic oil to plasma coated moly piston rings or gapless piston rings. Those rings are an advantage in race engines according to reputable race engine component suppliers like Sumnmit Racing Equipment. Those same suppliers have told me that plasma coated moly rings and gapless rings offer no benefit in a daily driver or even in a high performance street engine. In other words, except in a race engine the unbiased experts call plasma coated moly rings overkill and a waste of money.

One engine building "frill" that is now universally recommended is cylinder wall honing with a torque plate.

Using the old, now hard to find, non-detergent oil would be a poor choice for your motor.
That oil was the oil of the 50's.
I'm not saying it would harm your motor, but with better oils now available, especially Syn oils, the better choice is to use them.

As far as viscosity goes, engines of old did not have the tight tolerances that motors have today, hence the need for lighter viscosity oils today.

My new Dodge calls for 5w-20, my old one used 5w-30. Use what is recommended, it will probably give the best result in performance and MPG.

I know someone is going to say their motor runs or sounds better on this or that, thats fine, run it then if that makes you feel better or it sounds better.

I've done that, back in the 60's I ran my chevy motor on 40w Kendall Racing Oil.

But until you run it 100 k miles and then tear it down and check inside the motor, is that sound or feeling real mean much.

It might, and then it might not.

I'm not a big fan of additives, but I do change my oil more frequently than is recommended. When I lived in town and only drove short trips I changed it every 1000 miles.

I feel the best oil for any motor is CLEAN oil.

Dan

Generalities Bill, just generalities. I'm sure there are many different oil grades specified in the owners manuals if you look to every automaker on the market today. Point was that generally speaking that’s what takes up most of the shelf space today. And yes, I did see that S.A.E. 0w20 mentioned in a few places, haven’t read much about it though. Must be loaded with some sort of new polymer type of Viscosity Modifiers obviously the egg heads compounded something new. Imagine that, no shear friction from your oil even at winter temps, who’d have guessed.
As we've talked about in the past, I was involved with the midgets and sprints some years back. I've been out of the ‘loop’ for some time now, but I've still got some old buddies that are still going at it and my nephew is still running a couple of midgets around the midwest. One of our friends has an engine shop down in Indy and does mostly race engines; he’s still running a sprinter himself. He's often mentioned the difference he sees between engines that are running the straight mineral oil and the synthetic blends. According to him there’s a night and day difference. He says that even after long hard races the engines look like they haven’t even been run.
About that straight weight oil availability, up around here as I said, it’s getting so hard to find I might have to start using multigrade in my oil cans.
I had a real loose 216 that I’ve been running for the last four years and the first thing I did when it followed me home was to drain and fill with Rotella-T. With the bad oil scrapers it was using so much oil that I couldn’t afford to use a synthetic in it. Hoping to get it back from the engine shop this week. I had it bored .020” over, alum pistons, conrods reworked for inserts, etc. I had the head completely rebuilt a few thousand miles ago so I should end up with a zero time engine for next spring. I’m very definitely going to be running synthetic as soon as the break-in oil is done doing its thing. I’ll probably be looking at one of the racing grades because of the high ZDDP content. No need for a heavy weight though, with that newly rebuilt short block, the bearings will be nice and tight so an S.A.E. 20 weight will serve the purpose just fine.
I taint gonna get into a contest about the engines of today running closer tolerances. They are “held too” closer tolerances during manufacture than my 216 was simply because of the strides that we’ve made in the machining processes. A Stovebolt that has been rebuilt in a modern machine shop will be just as precise as a newer engine. The running tolerances haven’t changed much and our main concern is with bearing and piston clearances. Fact of the matter is, that today’s engines being built with aluminum alloy blocks and heads the clearances very much more than they do in a cast iron block and head. The selective fit of the bearings in the Stovebolt results in a very close tolerance bearing surface. Much of the myth that the older engines run larger tolerances comes form the fact that people are looking at worn out engines. There are as many variables to consider in a discussion like this as there are fish in the sea. When you compare expansion coefficients of the metals used to build our engines, Alum pistons in iron block not good, Alum pistons in Alum block good, Iron seats and guides in Iron head good, Iron seats and guides in Alum head bad, Iron crank in Iron block good, Iron crank in Alum block bad. The way around the incompatibilities is by engineering the tolerances, which we understand much better today than we did 50 or 60 years ago.
Gotta go feed the live stock,
DG

Note that there is nothing magic about the SAE 0W grade. It still has plenty of viscosity at low temperatures, just less viscosity than a 5W, as listed in the SAE table in this motor oil link.

Hoyt