BirdShot

Not sure if I like being called an "expert". I do work in oil analysis but I am learning all the time just like anyone else

Good stuff from Spitfire and Slalom44, valid points and things to consider.

Slipstream, I replied to your PM. I can look at this sample and see if there really is Copper wear or not. If there is bearing wear, we will likely see it.

BirdShot

Looking back in my own report history, I found one of my MINI that sees some autocross.

This one in particular had 9ppm of Cu. Much higher ppm Fe than we are use to seeing in Hondas. Important to note the lack of Lead, Tin, or Nickel. There is fuel present at a significant level.







There are 4 images but they are representative of the slide as a whole. I found no copper wear particles or any evidence of bearing specific wear. Standard rubbing wear of mostly Iron and some Aluminum.

BirdShot

In contrast, my old BMW E30 track/autocross car with 160k+ miles. Note the presence of Lead and Nickel in conjunction with Copper.



I didn't make a full ferro report but I did take photos.



IIRC there were more than a few of these Copper wear particles evident in the slide.

jacount

I'm curious as to why you are running amsoil Z-rod in your S? I too use amsoil, but use 10w-30 signature series.

slipstream444

I wanted to try out the Z-Rod due to the high ZDDP formulation, and have stayed with it for over a year. I am happy with the UOAs to date and will likely continue to run it.
I have an ACT pressure plate which is know to contribute to thrust washer wear. I have bypassed the clutch interlock (posted a DIY) to allow clutch out starting and I never sit with the clutch pushed in at idle (at a light), but the higher ZDDP is also beneficial for reducing thrust washer wear. I have a Berk high flow CAT - so I'm not concerned with damaging an expensive OEM CAT with ZDDP. I would not use Z-Rod if your car has an OEM CAT - or if you care about the longevity of your high flow CAT (as in it actually reducing emissions). ZDDP will damage a CAT over time.
The Z-ROD formulation is different than the signature series 10W30 in that it is not designed to be used for extended drain intervals. Considering I never ran ATM longer than 6,000 miles - this was of course not a problem. ATM is closer to a 5W30 than Z-Rod 10W30. Both oils have great NOACK volatility ratings and Z-Rod has slightly better HTHS numbers. Both oils are great - ATM is the obvious choice if you need a working catalyst.

slipstream444

I just received the updated/expanded UOA - and it appears you were right. There was a minor copper cutting wear example evident in the sample along with other very minor rubbing wear components (copper, aluminum and iron). There were very small amount of red and black oxides in the mix. It appears I may be getting a little dirt in my engine, which is the likely source of the copper wear. At first glance - my PCV grommet is worn and there is a bit of blow-by evident on the valve cover. If there is blow-by making it past the grommet to the outside - then light dirt particles are making their way into my engine as well. I think it's time to change out all the rubber on my valve cover.
None of the wear was out of the ordinary and was certainly very minor. However, the minor spike in copper revealed the fact I needed to examine how and where dirt was making it into my engine. Some of that may have been residual from when my Comptech oiled-foam filter was on its last legs (it was in bad shape) - some of it is likely dirt sneaking past the PVC grommet. I'll just keep an eye on it and post my next UOA. I'm still trying to get this UOA down to size in order to post. I'll work on it and post it soon.

Thank you BirdShot for your help!

SpitfireS

Those 2 are the largest contributions you can make to reduce wear on the thrust washers with a stronger PP.
IMO clutch out starting is allready 85%
ZDDP is / was (its 2013 you know...) used to protect flat tapped cams, and that is steel on steel.
The thrust washer is bearing material on steel, just like the crank journals.
IMO there is no need for ZDDP in the F2x with a stronger PP.
Eventhough it has no direct oil feed it (I think) does get squeezed out oil - under pressure - from the nearest crank journal but it being half moon it can not really build-up it's own oil pressure like a 360 journal does.
IOW: it needs oil, not necessarily ZDDP, to survive a stronger PP

As Captain Obvious I say... I Don't Think So
THE obvious choice is a 0W-30.

If you take the data from the Amsoil website you see that the 4-ball wear test is actually not better with the Z-rod compared to AZO, eventhough the HTHS is (by 16%)
Does this mean the 4-ball test is useless or does it mean the a higher HTHS is not always better?
If one's line of thought is: I want cold oil to get where I want it FAST > you go as thin as you can when its cold.
Now.... THAT's obvious....

slipstream444

I chose to use the high ZDDP oil after reading several forum posts dealing with crank-walk issues (thrust washer wear/failure) with highly modified Supras and Eclipses using high clamping force pressure plates. I bypassed my clutch interlock switch due to the recommendation in those forums - and wrote the DIY after doing so. Another common solution to excessive wear was using a high ZDDP oil. I don't know if ZDDP is more effective when used in applications where the friction surfaces are ferrous or not - I'll have to do more research. Nevertheless, those forums touted the use of high ZDDP motor oil as one of several things to mitigate the increased wear associated with high clamping force pressure plates.

I partially agree with your other points, but want to emphasize something that gets lost in the mix when comparing viscosities (and oils in general). You shouldn't just look at the viscosity printed on the label - you need to actually look at the numbers in the oil's specification. A "0W30" engine oil can actually cover a large spectrum oil viscosities - as in the "0" has a range and the "30" has a functional range. Viscosity ratings are not regulated and there is enough slop in the convention for marketing to trump the actual viscosity.

If you compare the latest specifications for AZO and ATM (and ASL for that matter) you will see the 40C (AZO 58.3; ASL; 60.1; ATM 62.5) and 100C (AZO 10.4; ASL 10.5; ATM 10.5) viscosity indexes are extremely close. In fact all these oils look very similar oils on paper - with the exception of the Viscosity Index (AZO 170; ASL 166; ATM 158). ATM also has a slightly higher HTHS number and notably lower NOACK volatility rating. A higher VI is not necessarily a good thing considering the more VIs there are in the formulation - the faster an oil will work its way out of its listed viscosity range.

On paper - ATM, ASL and AZO have VERY similar viscosities - regardless of front label says. One thing to consider then is AZO worth the extra $0.40 per quart over ATM and ASL? Which is actually the better oil? All things being equal, I think it is clear that ATM is the better overall oil due to the increased HTHS (ATM 3.2, ASL 3.2; AZO 3.1), lower volatility (ATM 5.3; ASL 6.9; AZO 7.6) and lower cost.

The Z-Rod (ZRT) formulation is closer to a "classic" 10W30, with a higher 40C viscosity (72.5) and slightly higher 100C viscosity (11.8) than ATM and AZO. I agree AZO's, ASL's and ATM's viscosity ranges are better - and I may in fact move back to ATM this winter due to that consideration. However, it is hard to ignore a HTHS of 3.6 and a NOACK of 5.2. It may not flow quite as fast as the other oils - but it provides an advantage where it counts.

Another example: The new Castrol Edge SPT 0W30 has a listed 40C viscosity of 72 cSt, a 100C viscosity of 12.21 cSt and a VI of 167. It's a "0W30" because it says so on the label, right? Not according to what I see (and it is disadvantaged in the HTHS and volatility departments). It's actually pretty close to ZRT's viscosity numbers - a "true"10W30. My point is you need to focus less on the label and more on what the actual viscosities are.

If you've read through all that - you can see why I am such an advocate of Amsoil ATM. It behaves as much or more like a "0W30" than most of the popular 0W30s available - and provides much better protection while it's at it.
I'm not to the point I would recommend ZRT for the S2000 (certainly not a stock S2000) - I am a few UOA away from making up my mind - and my potential recommendation for ZRT would be specifically for cars with high clamping force pressure plates.

SpitfireS

I think you know that I know not all 0W-30's are the same.
I just didn't mention it in this post.

Viscosity ranges ARE regulated by the SAE J300 spec.
Maybe the ranges are too wide.
To switch to a cSt @ 40C / 100C & HTHS label would be nice but it would confuse about 99.78% of the consumers, including certified mechanics working at all kinds of dealerships.

So far my engine runs well with SSO and the old style ACT.