Roller Cams

[Duke W.]

Re: Roller Cams

Mostly marketing hype... You don't need some pricey boutique oil.

Current CJ-4 has everything a vintage engine needs including about the same amount of ZDDP as S-category oils before the first limit went into effect with SL. CJ-4 has both a superior base stock blend and better additive package than our cars lived on for most of their lives!

Be wary of "technical information" from vendors. Often relevent facts are left out because the bottom line is: THEY WANT TO CONVINCE YOU TO BUY THEIR PRODUCT!

If you're not convinced that the cheapest CJ-4 is all you need, read the Web references (including taking the online courses) from the Summer '08 Corvette Restorer. These "Q&A" articles from vendors are for morons.

Duke

[Bill C.]

Re: Roller Cams

Here's a link to an interesting article about solid lifter cams and modern oil from the Pontiac crowd:

http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/tech/hppp_0802_pontiac_performance_engine_oil/index.html

I don't intend this to be a recommendation, but I plan to use the Brad Penn oil during my initial break in of my L-72 (427 / 425) rebuild. After that I will use Shell Rotella T, probably with the Comp Cams additive or the GM EOS.

Joe

Interesting link, on paper it looks like Brads would be OK, as long as its not much more money or trouble to get than the Rotella or equivalent.
Interesting note, did you happen to catch the authors name that wrote that article and also takes credit some of the pics?

Its Rocky Rotella, go figure, and the picture of the Rotella quart is not what is currently available, its the older version with more zinc, newer labels have the emissions friendly label.

Only bottles I still see with that older label are the straight 30 W.
Lots of the quoted info is good and the links to camshaft manufacturers recommendations are excellent. After all, is it not in their best interest to recommend the best possible product or combination of products and how to use them ?

Remember to read between all the lines when accepting info given by oil suppliers as fact and in your best interest!

The original GM EOS # 1052367 in the black bottle can occasionally still be found on auction sites and pretty reasonable priced, list on the new reformulated ( do not know for fact but need to assume much lower zinc level, which is why it was reformulated) version in the white bottle is close to $20. It is carried under the same part #, which you can be sure was done for a deliberate reason, and that reason may not be in your best interest.
Is anyone aware of any printed studies done by an independent source comparing the ingredient levels of the two?

I must confess I would be one of the ones mentioned that bought up all the older version I could while it was possible, a few hundred bottles for sure, that should cover me and my customers forever!

Bill Caldwell

[Joe L.]

Re: Roller Cams

Interesting link, on paper it looks like Brads would be OK, as long as its not much more money or trouble to get than the Rotella or equivalent.
Interesting note, did you happen to catch the authors name that wrote that article and also takes credit some of the pics?

Its Rocky Rotella, go figure, and the picture of the Rotella quart is not what is currently available, its the older version with more zinc, newer labels have the emissions friendly label.

Only bottles I still see with that older label are the straight 30 W.
Lots of the quoted info is good and the links to camshaft manufacturers recommendations are excellent. After all, is it not in their best interest to recommend the best possible product or combination of products and how to use them ?

Remember to read between all the lines when accepting info given by oil suppliers as fact and in your best interest!

The original GM EOS # 1052367 in the black bottle can occasionally still be found on auction sites and pretty reasonable priced, list on the new reformulated ( do not know for fact but need to assume much lower zinc level, which is why it was reformulated) version in the white bottle is close to $20. It is carried under the same part #, which you can be sure was done for a deliberate reason, and that reason may not be in your best interest.
Is anyone aware of any printed studies done by an independent source comparing the ingredient levels of the two?

I must confess I would be one of the ones mentioned that bought up all the older version I could while it was possible, a few hundred bottles for sure, that should cover me and my customers forever!

Bill Caldwell

Bill-----


GM #1052367 is discontinued. It is now replaced by GM #88862586. GM VERY rarely "brings back" a discontinued item under the original part number; it just doesn't "work well" in the GM parts system. When they RARELY do "bring something back", they almost always assign a new part number----not 100% of the time, but very close to it. In this case, I am informed that the 1052367 and the 88862586 are the same. Of course, neither of these products is or ever was manufactured by GM. I think they're manufactured by STP.