Engine break in concerns

Good news, I took it out for another spin put on those first 50 miles. Things seem to be loosening up nicely. I took it easy keeping it under 7k rpm varying throttle up and down through out the band. Cruised around town took it out on some back roads had some fun. Dropped the oil and now will load it up with Rotella-T for the next 500 miles. I left the cams stock so hopefully that increases their life.

it runs and idles smooth nice through the power band. However I think my timing is still out since it seems to lack power below 6k and then takes of quickly. It still gets RPM quickly and fast too but it feels soft. I expected it to have more torque to be honest it doesn't seem much different then when I had bad rings. Could it be carb settings now that I have bigger pistons?

Bad things I notices is I still have an oil leak and I can't find the source. I'm thinking it could be my APE tensioner or the back side of the cyl base which would SUCK!!. Either way it just makes a mess

Hope to break it in some more this weekend and check the timing.

Might want to check the three O-rings that go under the oil pressure switch adapter, for lack of a better term, that is where mine started leaking. A six mm allen and about 10 minutes was all it took to replace the o-rings.

XL777 wrote:

Thanks I did read the above post. I'm using casrol gtx motorcycle oil it all I have used in the past but plan on using rotella t next.
I live in a small town so to get 50 miles in town would take days haha most of the road around here post 80-110 km/hr speeds so I will have to find a back road to cycle through the gear.
reading the different posts and online opinions makes this process sound extremely sensitive or really easy hah. I guess I'll just try it and see nothing will be as bad as it was.

As long as the oil states it is SE class than you will be OK. Also purpose stated "Racing" oils are fine also. As long as it is not a SAE rated automotive oil it should be fine. If you are using bike oils, make sure they are rated SE or SF or SG or CG-3 or CG-4 or CH-3 or CH-4. It must NOT be rated SL or SM.
www.aa1car.com/library/api_motor_oil_classifications.htm

Motor Head wrote:

Might want to check the three O-rings that go under the oil pressure switch adapter, for lack of a better term, that is where mine started leaking. A six mm allen and about 10 minutes was all it took to replace the o-rings.

Not sure what part of the bike you mean

I would check your valve shims again. It is possible that you might have them too tight and you are leaking threw the valves. Also make sure that your advancer is not stuck, and is moving freely. If your bike ran fine with the carbs set the way they are before it should be running fine now. You might notice some hesitation but that is about all. since you have an overbore kit in it, make sure you are running premium gas. Especially if you are running stock cams. Your compression will be higher than advertised.

Sorry, do you see your oil pressure switch? I don't know which motor you have? J engine? Then it it under the carb rack, near the APE tensioner, on the block. 2 Allen Headed screws will remove the piece, 3 O-Rings live there and would be a good idea to replace.

Motor Head wrote:

Sorry, do you see your oil pressure switch? I don't know which motor you have? J engine? Then it it under the carb rack, near the APE tensioner, on the block. 2 Allen Headed screws will remove the piece, 3 O-Rings live there and would be a good idea to replace.

Yes I do agree, this is a problem which eventually plagues all of these bikes especially the "J" series motors. Mine is also leaking on a freshly rebuilt motor. As stated, it is the little device with the single wire going to it, right below your cam chain tensioner.

That makes sense since most of the oil is pooling under it and the runs along the base of the motor. I will check it out thanks.

My carbs are stock should I be doing any rejetting now that I have 1045 cc and bigger pistons?

otakar wrote:

Since ZDDP has only been removed from oils since the end of 2007, that would mean that these cars have over 100,000 put on them per year. And yes, many of the older cars are getting wiped out. It's all over the inter nett.

Being "all over the internet" is pretty much a sure indication it's wrong. AKA If "everyone" knows it's true, then it's probably false.

So, like I keep telling people,research!!

After tons of reading (good thing I read fast) it seems that ZDDP has been reduced from 1200/1500 ppm to 800 ppm. Can't find anything that says it has been totally removed.

Ever heard of a Tribologist?? Me neither until now. Seems to be an expert in metal to metal contact and lubrication.
Anyway the following quote is from an automotive OEM Tribologist, and it's posted on an engineering board.

drwebb (Automotive)
27 Aug 08 9:18
As I have alluded in other posts, from a formulation viewpoint I am skeptical that lower ZDDP is the root cause for two reasons:
1) Service classifications are defined mainly by oil performance and not chemistry. That means that API-licensed engine oils must have passed stringent engine Sequence tests specifically designed to gauge cam wear. This is the technical basis for recommending the latest categories as "backwards compatible" to older engines designed around previous service categories. While phosphorus content is limited in the latest categories, there has been no lessening in requirements for demonstrated cam wear protection.
2) The anti-wear effects of ZDDP tends to saturate at fairly low treat levels. This means that only a small amount is 'active' at a time, so a significant portion in 'older' formulations was there for oil performance durability over the course of the oil drain intervals. Break-in service is normally a short interval, so probably not all the ZDDP in the old 1200 ppm P oils was necessary for break-in protection.

There are a few specialty marketers who cater to the 'more is better' formulation strategy and advertise very high levels of phosphorus or zinc in their formulations. You can find one of these and try for yourself. Since such products are available, if high ZDDP were an effective fix for HP cam break-in problems word would get out that they are the solution. As that apparently has not happened then I suspect oil performance is a convenient scapegoat when there is a problem, because it's something the hard parts guys claim they can't control.

www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=214619&page=1

I found tons of websites saying that the lack of ZDDP in modern oil was killing motors, but they were all selling ZDDP.

I could find no posts (only went through 10-15 pages of search results though) from anyone saying their cam had been wiped out due to lack of ZDDP (or anything else), only people saying there had been reports of such things occurring, and no links to any such results.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it's snake oil IMHO.

That's the results of my research anyway, I'll continue to use Shell Rotella T in my bike, and Valvoline 10w40 in my flat tappet engine car. Everyone else can use whatever they like, I won't mind a bit

This post brought to you in the interest of education, feel free to believe it or ignore it.

steell wrote:

otakar wrote:

Since ZDDP has only been removed from oils since the end of 2007, that would mean that these cars have over 100,000 put on them per year. And yes, many of the older cars are getting wiped out. It's all over the inter nett.

Being "all over the internet" is pretty much a sure indication it's wrong. AKA If "everyone" knows it's true, then it's probably false.

So, like I keep telling people,research!!

After tons of reading (good thing I read fast) it seems that ZDDP has been reduced from 1200/1500 ppm to 800 ppm. Can't find anything that says it has been totally removed.

Ever heard of a Tribologist?? Me neither until now. Seems to be an expert in metal to metal contact and lubrication.
Anyway the following quote is from an automotive OEM Tribologist, and it's posted on an engineering board.

drwebb (Automotive)
27 Aug 08 9:18
As I have alluded in other posts, from a formulation viewpoint I am skeptical that lower ZDDP is the root cause for two reasons:
1) Service classifications are defined mainly by oil performance and not chemistry. That means that API-licensed engine oils must have passed stringent engine Sequence tests specifically designed to gauge cam wear. This is the technical basis for recommending the latest categories as "backwards compatible" to older engines designed around previous service categories. While phosphorus content is limited in the latest categories, there has been no lessening in requirements for demonstrated cam wear protection.
2) The anti-wear effects of ZDDP tends to saturate at fairly low treat levels. This means that only a small amount is 'active' at a time, so a significant portion in 'older' formulations was there for oil performance durability over the course of the oil drain intervals. Break-in service is normally a short interval, so probably not all the ZDDP in the old 1200 ppm P oils was necessary for break-in protection.

There are a few specialty marketers who cater to the 'more is better' formulation strategy and advertise very high levels of phosphorus or zinc in their formulations. You can find one of these and try for yourself. Since such products are available, if high ZDDP were an effective fix for HP cam break-in problems word would get out that they are the solution. As that apparently has not happened then I suspect oil performance is a convenient scapegoat when there is a problem, because it's something the hard parts guys claim they can't control.

www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=214619&page=1

I found tons of websites saying that the lack of ZDDP in modern oil was killing motors, but they were all selling ZDDP.

I could find no posts (only went through 10-15 pages of search results though) from anyone saying their cam had been wiped out due to lack of ZDDP (or anything else), only people saying there had been reports of such things occurring, and no links to any such results.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it's snake oil IMHO.

That's the results of my research anyway, I'll continue to use Shell Rotella T in my bike, and Valvoline 10w40 in my flat tappet engine car. Everyone else can use whatever they like, I won't mind a bit

This post brought to you in the interest of education, feel free to believe it or ignore it.

Since you don't believe in ZDDP, why do you use Shell Rotella-T????? :huh:

steell wrote:

After tons of reading (good thing I read fast) it seems that ZDDP has been reduced from 1200/1500 ppm to 800 ppm. Can't find anything that says it has been totally removed.

Phosphorus (a component of ZDDP - Zinc Dialkyl-Dithio-Phosphate) is the key component for valve train protection in an engine and 1600ppm (parts per million) used to be the standard for phosphorus in engine oil. In 1996 the EPA forced that to be dropped to 800ppm and then more recently (2004?) to 400ppm - a quarter of the original spec.

Read more: www.carbibles.com/engineoil_bible.html#ixzz0wbm0G65C

blog.motorists.org/warning-if-you-have-a...-your-oil-carefully/

Shell Rotella T which is a conventional (mineral-based) oil that was originally formulated for diesel engines. Rotella T still contains 1,200 parts per million ZDDP, according to Shell – which is as much as five times the amount found in other oils.

That is what I have also read in other places, that some oils are down to about 300 ppm or less. And, they don't want to talk about it when asked and they sure as hell don't put it on the label.

This leads us to the main point of this article--zinc, or more specifically the lack of it in today's oils. Oil companies started adding ZDDP (zinc dialkyldithiophosphate) to engine oil back in the 1950s to help reduce wear and tear during engine start-up. How important is ZDDP to your classic Mustang's engine? It reduces bearing and journal wear by a factor of 20.

www.mustangmonthly.com/techarticles/mump...ngine_oil/index.html

Like I keep saying: cam lobes are not the only surfaces subject to severe wear without film protection, they are just the ones that fail the fastest.

I'm with Mr. Elliot on this. Anytime a large group of uneducated people on the internet "knows" something, chances are it's false. You can say the guys recommending the ZDDP are educated, and the probably are, but they're trying to sell additives. I have yet to find and real proof out there for this problem, and I like to think that if it were an issue it would be addressed.

As for Tribologists, I am going to be doing an internship at the Tribology department at Volkswagen AG in Germany this fall. Maybe by the end of my internship I will be able to shed some light on all this. Or even sooner, as I have a few Tribology texts out from the University library to read before I start work.