>Muh zinc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vj FZMKvEwY W

File: 1460767875461.gif (2MB, 349x255px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 349x255px

What exactly are you complaining about? This is how sponsorships work.

>>16234905
I just wanted a comfy motortrend thread.

>>16234839
You get what you get. The dudes have actually jobs and you get to watch them for free. God forbid you have to listen to what products they use in their vehicles. Hard to hate on motor trend when they let you watch for free

>>16235012
That ended a while ago I'm afraid.

Can't really blame them though, they discovered their little youtube channel was more profitable then magazines.

>>16235971
I don't blame them, print media is on its way out.

>>16235971
Yep. It's sad.

File: 1479301839555.jpg (68KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 700x700px

>>16235971
;_;
>mfw roadkill is shit now
what else is good?

>>16234839
Amsoil is a pyramid scheme anyways right?

saw that episode today

its a glorified excuse to market half length pushrods for 400$

fuck that
SBCs are bought and built cheap. the technology is ancient. anyone who buys a 350/450 from blueprint is a fucking fag

>>16235012
>I just wanted a comfy motortrend thread.
Then the OP probably shouldn't be complaining about sponsorships that actually relate to programming (and tied in well) instead of something like "Coca-Cola presents Engine Masters brought to you by Charmin Toilet Paper"

>>16236203
Dirt every day is usually good. Too bad they stuck YET ANOTHER GODDAMN LS into that Willys wagon instead of something vaguely related to it like a 4.0 I6

>>16234839
>Add 0.050'' of valve lift
>WOW IT MAKES MORE POWER
>ROLLER > FLAT TAPPET
God damned idiots. Still, I'd buy the roller, because 750 is worth the peace of mind of not wiping a cam lobe during breakin.

>Is zinc a meme?
Not in old engines.

File: 466562565.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

BAAM!

>>16238066
This.

Zinc in flat tappet engines especially is not a fucking meme, and claiming it is shows you've never been around pushrod engines or classics.


Flat tappet cams need zinc and phosphorus levels higher than average motor oil has these days, because it has anti wear properties to slow and help prevent cam lobe wear.

People have been known to lose a cam lobe or two or three during break-in using improper oil especially coupled with not priming the engine. Things like hyperlube zinc replacement, amsoil or Lucas oil break in additives, or products like zddplus are all designed to raise the zinc ppm levels into the desired 1500-2200ppm range. Break ins typically call for 2000-3000 ppm. Modern day oils can be as low as 600ppm, I've read about a guy having his Corvettes factory oil tested before having it changed, and it was near 5000ppm of zinc, and that's on a modern pushrod.
An old solution was to run diesel oils as theyre higher in detergents and subject to different emissions, unfortunately this no longer stands true as zinc and phosphorus levels are drastically lower in these as well now. This is why companies have specific break in oils, and specialty racing oils designed with zinc levels in mind, but these are costly typically.
Ive owned multiple flat tappet motors in multiple cars. Everything from a 297, 305, 350, 383, 400 and a 454, Ive been running zinc in my oils for close to 20 years after seeing multiple engines wipe lobes out, lost an intake and 2 exhaust lobes with excessive wear on the whole cam in my 66 Caprice that had the 297. Rebuilt the motor with a mild cam, that lasted less than 6000 miles before the fuel pump lobe was gone, with a new pump rod but using the original fuel pump.

>>16238156
>this no longer stands true as zinc and phosphorus levels are drastically lower in these as well now.

Yuuuup. Max is 1500ppm on the zinc, with 1250 being average. Looks like Delo400 has the highest of both zinc and phosphorus but Walmart, Loves and NAPA branded oils just about tying for second.

Of course take this with a grain of salt, the testing house is sponsored by Chevron, and the data appears to be 3 years out of date.

http://www.pqiamerica.com/May%202013/chevrondelo.htm
http://www.pqiamerica.com/May%202013/NAPA1540.htm
http://www.pqiamerica.com/May%202013/supertech.htm
http://www.pqiamerica.com/May%202013/loves.htm


Now I'm gonna go see if I can't find specs on Caterpillar oil.

>>16238561
>>16238561
Actually, scratch that.

Cat will have gone to the same zinc levels everyone else has since offroad stuff has to comply with EPA4 now.

>>16234839
He specifically says you can get oil containing zinc from other suppliers, but they just have Ams because muh sponsorships, and they happen to contain the exact quantity of zinc he mentioned. Maybe Castrol has some with 1900ppm or 2100ppm. I don't see the problem. They're very straight and upforward about their sponsorship and don't make any claims to why their brand is better than anyone else's. Just that, if you get an Amsoil brand oil, this specific one is the one you need for this application. Insert alternative brand's equivalent oil type here.

>>16238066
The roller ALLOWS more lift and better lobe profile for the same duration. The real advantage isn't the roller itself but the freedom it gives cam designers. They actually explained this too.

>>16238786
>They actually explained this too.
Explaining that your test isn't valid does not make your test valid. It actually does the opposite.

They should've just used two identical cam specs in terms of lift, duration at 0.050'', and LSA, and then let the rest of that ''cam design freedom'' prove that a roller is superior. Simply put, a roller cam is already the better option because you don't run the risk of ruining cam lobes. They only had to prove a simple performance advantage, and then they could've said ''Well in practical terms you could've used 0.050'' more lift, so the roller would've been even more powerful with a better matched cam!''. Now, they don't have much of a conclusion at all.

>>16238808
You stupid nigger. Your test would be invalid because it compares the best case of the flat tappet versus a gimped roller.

You should compare the best of one to the best of the other, which they did. A reasonable flat tappet setup just doesn't have as much to give as a reasonable roller setup before you run into trouble and exponential costs and shortened component lifespan.

>>16238832
>best case of the flat tappet versus a gimped roller.
In which case the roller still probably would've won.

>You should compare the best of one to the best of the other, which they did.
They did not. They were streetable cams.

We aren't comparing lifespan. We're comparing power.

>>16238156

everything in this post is false

well done

>>16238860
Yes it would have won with a negligeable difference.

They did. Every purpose has an optimum. For a daily driven cam, these were about the optimum.
Anything greater and you'd run into crappy idle, reduced reliability, etc, etc.

Now if you're done trolling me, I think I've given you enough (you)'s.

>>16238899
So it would've won. Thanks for agreeing here.

Both situation's optimum (or maximum, if you will) lies a lot higher. You're not losing vacuum or idle - actually, you'd lose it because of the higher valve lift of the roller cam.

Not trolling, you just know very little about the limits of modern engines.

>>16238944
Nigga you don't lose idle quality with lift. You do with duration.
Neither's optimum for daily/street purposes lies any higher. For racing obviously a lot of design requirements go right out the window and you increase lift, duration and ramp angle on both. And in that case, the roller cam STILL allows for more of all of those other than maybe duration compared to the flat tappet cam. Any particular purpose you're optimizing for other than the absolute lowest cost, a roller is going to win because the cam lobe can be more radical without biting. That's where you start seeing small blocks with big-block lifters, where the larger radius roller and axle increase strength and allowable ramp angle.

Start spending some time on websites like this and others like it. Then talk to me about cams.
http://www.tildentechnologies.com/Cams/CamDesign.html

>>16238960
I'm not debating the superiority of roller cams here (they are), I'm debating the validity of the test, and to be honest, the power increase might have been completely due to the increase in lift.

And no, neither are at the limit of what they can do. An LS6 cam for example has a way higher ramp rate (both higher peak lift, and lower duration), yet that's perfectly streetable. A Crower 220 would have more lift than the roller cam used in this demo, with near identical duration. Hell, there's some Lunati stuff that'll go well over .600'' on flat tappets, but that's circle track kinda stuff with wider durations.

tl;dr they picked an apple and an orange, and made pseudoscientific conclusions.