Jeep Strokers

Posted: **February 27th, 2009, 2:48 pm**

I think cavaliers1323 is just trying to inflate his post count.

Posted: **February 27th, 2009, 3:05 pm**

cavaliers1323 wrote:STFU. I may not know that much about motors (I never claimed too), but I do know oil! Here is a VOA of EOS for comparisons sake, you be the judge.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ub ... er=1086277

50wt w/ under 5000ppm zinc hmmmmm :roll:

Mr. C,
Your hard case VOA testing from Blackstone's is not being taken very serious.
To quote from your link

Until there is some corroborating evidence I'd take Blackstone's VOA with a large grain of salt.

Still there is plenty of zinc and phosphate in the analysis. Your own comments were to avoid excessive amounts of zinc as it would be corrosive.

There certainly is enough ZDDP in EOS to act as an anti wear/scuff agent.

So your point is ?

Seems to many folks that you have a hard on for anything that challenges your opinions.

Sorry dude, out of ammunition x 2.

BTW the fed ex guy just delivered 4 more bottles of EOS today.

Posted: **February 27th, 2009, 3:39 pm**

cavaliers1323 wrote: 50wt w/ under 5000ppm zinc hmmmmm

How much will that 50wt change the viscosity of say a 10w30 oil? If you just average it, then using 6 qts of 10w30 and 1/2 qt of EOS you should end up with a 13w31 oil. Or is that not how viscosity works in that scenario?

Posted: **February 27th, 2009, 4:44 pm**

Jsawduste, I didn't come here to argue. Sorry, I came here to learn. At this point I'm convinced your out to disprove every word out of my mouth, no matter how accurate. Save your immature flaming for pirate. If there is something I do not know I'm the first to admit it. So if you would like to read through my every post five times to catch me on a little irrelevant detail, fine by me. BUT If you would like to have a decent discussion for once, also fine by me.

Some people do not like Blackstone, for various reasons. MANY MANY people continue to use them for various other reasons. Each lab uses different equipment and different methods of testing. Like I said you be the judge, the VOA's are pretty damn accurate to a certain extent. It's when you compare them to other labs analysis's that shows differences (little ones at that), do too different methods, etc. For example some labs use ASTM D5185 for the spectral exam, some use ASTM D6595... Different methods yield different results.

The point, as I said in my first post, is by the time you add enough EOS you have effectively thickened your oil, as well as "watered down" your other additives (other than calcium in this case). If you want to spend the extra money for a less concentrated product, then by all means go for it. I posted this info up for people with open minds that don't have their heart set on a product simply because "they heard it was good." I have posted solid evidence that your money can be better spent, for better results.

As far as promoting a closed companies products, I have been recommending it since the day I had a VOA preformed. Also I doubt Crane Cams was blending this in house, and there for there is a good chance it will just be re-labeled and sold by someone else.

I LOVE HOW PEOPLE DUMP SHIT IN THEIR MOTORS, KNOWING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT, JUST BECAUSE THEY HEARD IT WORKS. AND THEN THEY TOO CLAIM IT WORKS WITH NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE, ACTUALLY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL???? MAKES NO SENSE TO ME WHATSOEVER.

As far as Corey's post on pirate, claimed to have UOAs and rockwell hardness tests done on the failed cam/motor. YET none of those results were posted, hmm wonder why?

Instead he jumped to a conclusion w/ no evidence other than "rumors." HE DIDNT EVEN KNOW WHAT OIL WAS USED!! WTF? How do you blame an oils *low* ZDDP, when you don't even know 1st which oil, 2nd that oils ZDDP levels????? For all we know his friend was using a HDEO with 1200 ppm zinc! While there is some good info in there, I couldn't care less about his ignorant post. IMHO either 1. the motro wasn't broken in properly, 2. his friend is an idiot, and got a little skinny pedal happy.

While there are others it *seems* as if the 4.0 is having the most cam failures out of any engine family. Why is that? Yet to be known, but I'm sure the narrow cam lobes and high spring pressures aren't helping anything, as I suggested on Corey's post before the other fellow. While I'm sure there are some, how many *stock* 4.0 failures have you heard of? Now compare! Many *stock* flat tappets are running SM rated oils with no problems for over a year now, mine included. AGAIN I DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT MOTORS!

Yes Hi-Pro motors need more AW/AS additives, but ZDDP isn't the only answer! If you don't believe me, go ask Doc. I personally use it for cheap insurance, b/c it is tried and true.

All of these motors that you claim that EOS "saved," or w/e it is you claimed, more than likely would have lasted just as long, maybe longer. THERE IS NO KNOWING, THERE ARE TO MANY VARIABLES. Also EOS is not the same as it used to be, the formula has changed. Do a little research, before you jump to conclusions

No, viscosity doesn't work like that. 20 wt, 30 wt, ect are "grades" they are ranges. Viscosity is measured in centistrokes (Cst.) So the additive would change the CST, however it could still fall in the same grade, maybe, maybe not. Here is a good read on how viscosities are measured:
http://www.oilanalysis.com/article_deta ... icleid=411

And, honestly I could care less how many post I have.

Posted: **February 27th, 2009, 6:13 pm**

So, there is no equation to figure viscosity? Pretty much you need to get a VOA with the item in question added?

Posted: **February 27th, 2009, 6:28 pm**

Pretty much. You could get a viscometer. I think I've read where people were doing it home, not sure how accurate it is. I'll ask on BITOG..

Posted: **February 27th, 2009, 7:00 pm**

this is what a blender on BITOG had to say:

as a comparison only take oils at SAME temp and put in a small container (same amount) with a small hole drilled in bottom and messure time to dain completly out. as a comparion using same temp and same volume of oil you can compare time to "drian' amnd get a very ruff idea of vis compared to EACH other. otherwise other than haveing a full on vis machine NO way to test at home or send to me I will run vis for you.
bruce

Posted: **February 27th, 2009, 7:22 pm**

That seems very rough.

Posted: **February 27th, 2009, 7:36 pm**

cavaliers1323 wrote:Jsawduste, I didn't come here to argue. Sorry, I came here to learn. At this point I'm convinced your out to disprove every word out of my mouth, no matter how accurate. Save your immature flaming for pirate. If there is something I do not know I'm the first to admit it. So if you would like to read through my every post five times to catch me on a little irrelevant detail, fine by me. BUT If you would like to have a decent discussion for once, also fine by me. :rockout:

Some people do not like Blackstone, for various reasons. MANY MANY people continue to use them for various other reasons. Each lab uses different equipment and different methods of testing. Like I said you be the judge, the VOA's are pretty damn accurate to a certain extent. It's when you compare them to other labs analysis's that shows differences (little ones at that), do too different methods, etc. For example some labs use ASTM D5185 for the spectral exam, some use ASTM D6595... Different methods yield different results.

The point, as I said in my first post, is by the time you add enough EOS you have effectively thickened your oil, as well as "watered down" your other additives (other than calcium in this case). If you want to spend the extra money for a less concentrated product, then by all means go for it. I posted this info up for people with open minds that don't have their heart set on a product simply because "they heard it was good." I have posted solid evidence that your money can be better spent, for better results.

As far as promoting a closed companies products, I have been recommending it since the day I had a VOA preformed. Also I doubt Crane Cams was blending this in house, and there for there is a good chance it will just be re-labeled and sold by someone else.

I LOVE HOW PEOPLE DUMP SHIT IN THEIR MOTORS, KNOWING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT, JUST BECAUSE THEY HEARD IT WORKS. AND THEN THEY TOO CLAIM IT WORKS WITH NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE, ACTUALLY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL???? MAKES NO SENSE TO ME WHATSOEVER. :shock:

As far as Corey's post on pirate, claimed to have UOAs and rockwell hardness tests done on the failed cam/motor. YET none of those results were posted, hmm wonder why? :bs: Instead he jumped to a conclusion w/ no evidence other than "rumors." HE DIDNT EVEN KNOW WHAT OIL WAS USED!! WTF? How do you blame an oils *low* ZDDP, when you don't even know 1st which oil, 2nd that oils ZDDP levels????? For all we know his friend was using a HDEO with 1200 ppm zinc! While there is some good info in there, I couldn't care less about his ignorant post. IMHO either 1. the motro wasn't broken in properly, 2. his friend is an idiot, and got a little skinny pedal happy.

While there are others it *seems* as if the 4.0 is having the most cam failures out of any engine family. Why is that? Yet to be known, but I'm sure the narrow cam lobes and high spring pressures aren't helping anything, as I suggested on Corey's post before the other fellow. While I'm sure there are some, how many *stock* 4.0 failures have you heard of? Now compare! Many *stock* flat tappets are running SM rated oils with no problems for over a year now, mine included. AGAIN I DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT MOTORS!

Yes Hi-Pro motors need more AW/AS additives, but ZDDP isn't the only answer! If you don't believe me, go ask Doc. I personally use it for cheap insurance, b/c it is tried and true.

All of these motors that you claim that EOS "saved," or w/e it is you claimed, more than likely would have lasted just as long, maybe longer. THERE IS NO KNOWING, THERE ARE TO MANY VARIABLES. Also EOS is not the same as it used to be, the formula has changed. Do a little research, before you jump to conclusions

No, viscosity doesn't work like that. 20 wt, 30 wt, ect are "grades" they are ranges. Viscosity is measured in centistrokes (Cst.) So the additive would change the CST, however it could still fall in the same grade, maybe, maybe not. Here is a good read on how viscosities are measured:
http://www.oilanalysis.com/article_deta ... icleid=411

And, honestly I could care less how many post I have. :roll:

:cheers:

Mr. C,
If you would have done a search on Pirate of the engine(s) that Corey has been involved with. You would have seen a VERY high caliber of craftsmanship. How about a 4.5 stroker. Methanol injected, turbo-ed running 14 lbs. plus of boost ?

I have no doubt that the engine of his friend was put together correctly. In Corey's own words, the spring pressures and valve train geometry where within reasonable specs. A topic he and I discussed in the building of his turbo engine.

How do you explain the SUDDEN rash of cam failures that MANY flat tappet engines had ? Not just 4.0`s. Even engines built with cams that dated back into the 60`s and 70`s. After forty years SBC all of a sudden have camshaft oiling problems ? Engines that had been built by professional engine builders with years of experience.

Industry publications, technical reports and hobbyist magazines wrote many a story about the fact of the sudden demise of camshafts in many make and model of engines.

As the knowledge base was built up. It pointed to the reformulation of the available engine oils. Oils that had reductions in ZDDP. Yes there were other factors, there always is. But the root cause in many of these failures was the lack of proper lubrication of the camshaft lobes.

Do you really think that the OEM, aftermarket and specialty manufactures all of a sudden put out a sub standard camshaft product ? What about the cams that were made way back when ? To say that an engine that had a cam failure would have lasted just as long if the cam had been broken in properly. Regardless of the ZDDP levels it was designed to use ? So all those cam failures are based on inferior parts or incorrect set up ? I do not think so. Even stock 4.0`s have shown cam/lifter failures at an alarming rate. Coincidently starting about the the time the oils were reformulated.

In Corey`s case neither of us can make an accurate assumption on how the cam was broken in. My strong opinion is that it was done correctly. My suspicion of the bent pushrods is based solely on conjecture.

As an interesting fact. JP magazines Insane Inline stroker also had a cam failure. A cam that was installed and broken in by Comp Cams themselves. I know because I was part of the project. Comp`s evaluation after doing VOA and UOA test`s. Hardness tests on the cam and lifters. The result Lack of ZDDP fortified oil.

Mr. C, with all due respect. You have admitted that you do not know a lot about engines. Then how can you make general comments on how an engine has failed ? Or what the needs of a particular engine combination requires. As you have said, there are way to many variables. One that we can control is the oils we feed our engines.

While there are several good oils and oil additives on the market. Some have proven to be very reliable. Despite what a VOA may indicate, these additives have earned a strong following. The fact that they may change a viscosity rating or dilute the additive package (both of which I STRONGLY disagree to be a factor) they simply work.

Do you really think that your knowledge surpasses that of General Motors and the engineers that spec-ed the formulation of EOS ? Do you think Comp/Crane (RIP) or any other aftermarket company has chemist`s on the payroll to create there own asm. lube ? Did they search the internet for the asm. lube with the highest ZDDP rating ? Then repackage it in there own name ? No, they turned to the OEM`s for help.

You speak of the Lucas additive. Tom Bodner was the driving force behind that product. It did win a SEMA best of show award. Guess what ? Field tests have not shown it to be as good as the claims made for it. Despite the VOA tests. Bob the oil guy and his infamous gear tests with Lucas is another case in point.

While your intentions are pure. Your execution simply is based on your own opinions. Which doesn't have much merit. So please, Shut the F*$@ Up and go play in someones else's sandbox.

Posted: **February 28th, 2009, 12:35 am**

For what it's worth, my stock 4.0 with a stock cam ate a lobe/lifter at about 60k miles, and the crane cam that replaced it did the same thing after about another 15k miles. I have a Golen stroker right now with about 10k on it and I've got my fingers crossed.

Posted: **February 28th, 2009, 5:59 am**

I just dont get you. Either you dont read my posts, or I dont say what you want so you just put words in my mouth. READ CAREFULLY:

NEVER did I question coreys ability or his shops for that matter

NEVER did I say the motor was incorrectly assembeld

NEVER did I say Hi-Pro motors dont need the extra anti-wear additives.

While I thank you for finaly stating your opinion w/o the childish bashing, you need to slow down when your reading. Because you keep arguing points in which I never stated.

No Crane Cams didnt hop online to find the strongest additive, they had an outside blender formulate an additive for their requirements. This is VERY common in the lubrication industry.

As far as the insane inline stroker, thats cool you worked on it, congrats. Maybe you will be wlling to help me when the time comes.

I try to be very careful in my word selection. I have this conversation with my uncle (who has been building motors for 55 years, mainly SBC & BBC) all the time....Much of it is pure speculation, but there is some truth to it.

A lot of what I have posted is not only my opinion, it is fact with scientificly proven evidence. If you dont believe that, than I'm not to sure what you will believe.

I say I dont know much about motors, because I don't know enough to speculate on failures, etc. But I do have a understanding of how things work. I have never built a motor, but I have torn some down out of interest. The 4.0 included. I have built axles, transmissions, suspensions, etc etc, everything but motors. No lubrication doesnt just pretain to motors.

As far as oil, I personally have done a lot of real world testing. As well as consulted and discused with experts (chemists, blenders, tribologists). I myself am no expert, nor did I claim to be.

IMHO these new (SM) oils are not made for flat tappet motors, and the problem is they are exposing underlying issues. What ever that may be, the aftermarket cam design. The factory block/head design, again I cant really speculate here. With the older oils thse were non-issues, but now they are being exposed. So use Docs advice, because it is good advice. This is my opinion and if you wish to argue against it, thats fine. But have fun arguing agaisnt fact....

With the EOS, use it as you wish. Just keep in mind whats in it, and the formula has changed, just like oils, its not the same as the yesteryears. I'll stop bashing it if you wish, just as long as eveyone is aware of what it is. My point here is people need to educate themselves on what they are putting in their motors (a pretty big investment IMO). and not just dump something in, with no idea to whats in it, because they heard it worked.

If you want to bash BITOG, be my guess thats your loss. But I guarentee you it is by far the best oil site on the web, and if you give it a chance you will agree. Its the pirate4x4 of oil, minus the flamming. There are retired oil co employees who have inside info, there are tribologists whos job is to study the effect of wear and friction, there are chemists, and there are blenders who make oil. As well as guys like you and me, who want the best for the equipment.

Don't even get me started on Lucas, that shit truely is GARBAGE. Its nothing more than an unadditized petroleum brightstock (group 1 base stock) oil thickener. Oil companies dont even use group 1s because it is subpar and cannot meet the needs of todays, or even older motors. So will it stop consumtion, prob as your thickening your oil. But IMO there are far better ways to achieve this, 1 fix your mechanical issue, 2 start with a thicker oil to begin with. It is a waste of money, I wouldnt put it into a motor on its last leg if someone gave me 100 bucks.

Everyone seems to think they can blend oil better than the chemists, tribologist, blenders, and the millions that are poured into R&D of formulating oil. Why not just use a fully forulated oil that is suited to your application?

Posted: **February 28th, 2009, 2:46 pm**

FWIW Here is a Lucas additive thread, there is a VOA in it as well as a Rotella T/Lucas blend that shows how much it dilutes your additives, and how much it thickens your oil....
http://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr ... w=1#UNREAD

And on labs, you can really compare ones to another's due to different methods. This is why blackstone got such a bad rep to begin with, its more about a labs margin of error. I have had blacktone re-run almost every sample I have sent in, and the results are very very close...If you ever ask a lab tech how easy this is you will see what I mean.

Posted: **September 4th, 2009, 11:14 am**

found that GM is sourcing it again under new part number 88862586 and its available from 2 sources.
summit racing
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/NAL-88862586/
and gmpartsdirect;
http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/results.cf ... r=88862586

Jeep Strokers

EOS

Re: EOS

Re: EOS

Re: EOS

Re: EOS

Re: EOS

Re: EOS

Re: EOS

Re: EOS

Re: EOS

Re: EOS

Re: EOS

Re: EOS

Re: EOS