Packard Forum Index » Post-War (1946-54)

I'll bet he was seeking an quick, clear, and easy answer...
Pandora's can-o-worms!
ha, HA, HAAA!
I believe motor oil is one of the most heavily marketed fluids to the macho motorhead. Brand loyalty is a virtue to marketers.
The only bona fide motor oil issue, I can recall, was when the PA source oils which had a high parafin content were in wide use and there was sludge that accumulated on the colder valve covers due to "reflux". They reduced the parafin content by refining more and problem disappeared.
They meet the grade they're made for which ties to an application that was tested. Even within those groupings aren't a lot of differences, mostly newer formulae.
Snake oil has been around since snakes.
I used to have access to SAE, but retired now. But a trove of info there.
sae.org/standards/content/j183_201708/

Not exactly brand loyalty in my case but my father always used Royal Triton in our 1957 Ford and other cars and, as I like the name, I use it too and typically 10-30 or similar. If I’m going to fire up a car that hasn’t been run in years, I used some bulk oil of a similar viscosity after draining the old and changing the filter but after it’s been run for a while that way, I drain and change the filter again, then in goes the Royal Triton.

Years ago I used the then-trendy graphite oil for a while from, I believe, Mobile and still have a couple unopened cans. It was just basic 30 weight and after it got distributed throughout the engine in my 1954 Patrician, it was going nearly 30 mph without pressing the pedal so had to lower the idle speed. Mileage improved to close to 20 mpg as I recall which may also be attributed in part to the multi-tip spark plugs in it to this day. I had heard stories about problems with this oil but never experienced them although one thing is that the oil started out black so difficult to tell when it needed to be changed just by looking at it.

Quote:

I wasn't expecting anything of the sort! Honesty I had no idea of what to expect, but I certainly got some interesting information! I'm now entirely comfortable with sticking 10w-30 in the car. It's nice, it's the same oil as I use in my little dinghy, so I don't have to keep multiple stocks lol. I also figured that a lot of the talk I was seeing on the internet was bogus; snake oil is a real phenomenon!

What that guy said about full flow versus bypass filters is certainly interesting though. I had assumed the automotive industry moved away from them for legitimate engineering reasons, but the more I learn the less this seems to be the case, and the more it seems like modern oil formulations are designed to compensate for the full flow filter's failings.

Re: by-pass vs. full flow oil filters, addreessed that on these forums a couple years ago:

Most Packards, if they have an oil filter, have a bypass, other than 1934-39 senior eights and 1935-39 Twelve, a rarity shared with the 1933-on Pierce-Arrows, which introduced hydraulic valve lifters, and 1931-33 Auburn Twelve, the latter surely the best buy in automotive history. So the below may be of interest.

Expanding on the above discussion of bypass vs. full flow filtration, here's an interesting letter in the 2006, No.5 Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg Newsletter by Al Light, Williamsport, PA, which is, coincidentally, where Lycoming, builder of all A-C-D engines, is still based:

"I really enjoyed the editor's comments on the club website about the real value of having an oil filter.

In the early 1950s while at Ford Engineering I was fortunate to hear an argument of "Full Flow" vs. "Partial Flow" oil filtration. The pro "Full Flow" people seemed to be more interested in the positive sales pitch that this system provided while the "Partial Flow" people seemed to
have a more solid engineering approach. The chief engineer from Fram Corporation stated the big difference was the allowable filter pressure drop. The larger the pressure drop, the finer and more material will be caught. With the full flow system you are restricted to approximately 10 pounds per inch drop across the element, and also require a bypass valve that will open when this pressure drop is exceeded. This of course is to protect the engine from oil starvation in the event of a plugged filter. With the partial flow, or sometimes called bypass system, the pressure drop is full engine oil pressure since
the oil discharges from the filter directly into the oil pan and not under any pressure. The system is automatically
bypassed if the filter plugs. It was also noted that a denser filter element is used on the partial flow system.

The Fram engineer summed up his thought by stating the answer to the argument was obtained by considering the following question: "Is it better to filter all of the dirt from part of the oil or to filter part of the dirt from all of the oil?"

He also stated that with the full flow system the bypass valve may open under cold starts and sometimes opens at high engine RPM when the allowable pressure drop may be exceeded. This results in no filtration under these conditions. His other comment was that the biggest advantage to full flow was to catch the machining chips, etc. in new engines. Fram's final approach was to propose the use of a combination system that did both full and partial filtering. I'm sure that this would have increased their filter business. I am not aware of any such system ever being used."


I can only add my auld aircraft/auto mechanic/machinist/pilot, blown '37 Cord, Auburn 12, Marmon 16-owning friend said they were taught in tech school that a bypass filter will eventually filter all your engine's oil after a drive of 50 or so miles.

Another friend with '59 and '63 Ferraris showed me they left Modena with both full and bypass filters, as do some more recent trucks and heavy equipment, some of the latter coming only with bypass filtration.
Such equipment is likely to run hour after hour, shift after shift, so all the oil would easily be filtered.

As we've observed, for all the technological breakthroughs since Packard folded, much engineering is cost engineering,
but don't know if this is the case regarding bypass vs. full flow oil filtration.

Very interesting thread, thanks everyone for the helpful info.

Oil filters were an option on legacy GM engines into the sixties.

The best studies I have found on full flow filtration comes from the railroads where they found that diesel engine wear was greatly increased with lack of filtration. However, the difference was so vast compared to gasoline engines I'd have to see a similar comparison for road going diesel.

One anomaly with Packards is that, with the proving grounds, they moved to full flow filtration but dropped it after the "senior" lines. That sort of supports the old timers wanting the most oil pressure they could get into those motors. Start pushing a Su8 to the limit and number two rod will launch into orbit.

One thing about those bypass filters being used on expensive heavy equipment is they filter down to very small micron levels. An important consideration given the sumps carry gallons and gallons of oil. What I don't understand is why engine builders haven't discovered rectification. Even Bugatti recommended heating oil on the stove to remove dissolved water.

I actually interviewed at a company recently that makes a line of oil dehydrators for that very purpose. Supposedly dehydration combined with effective filtration makes for oil that has a many times longer life.

Quote:

Well, low and medium speed diesels are incredibly dirty. Sooting is a big issue on a motor that's so big, you can climb inside the crankcase to inspect it. Fun fact: the top ten shipping freighters in the world are responsible for more combustion emissions than every operating automobile in the world *combined.* Puts the regs into perspective, doesn't it?

Good catch, Icarus. According to the New Yorker, London Daily Mail and others, 16 of the world's biggest ships produce more pollution, sulfur oxides, nitrous oxides (the causes also of acid rain) than all the world's cars, and one airline flight from O'Hare to SFO negates an entire year of living in a tiny, energy-efficient home and driving a Prius.

According to UN and other vetted international studies, animals raised for meat and dairy produce more greenhouse gas than all the world's cars, trucks, buses, trains, planes, ships combined.

But on a planet of 8 billion people all burning some kind of carbon, 350 million of them in the US (recent census underreported by 18-20 million according to the NY Times, Wash Post and others), internal combustion cars are a convenient whipping boy with people lacking the discipline, focus, knowledge to examine their own actions. Until we buck the consumer-driven media's blackout on overpopulation, encourage people to "have one or none," adopt if more wanted, embrace the win-win-win of a plant based vegan diet, i.c. cars remain the sacrificial anode.

Those who consider this "politics" and are happy living in a cylinder, playing us/them, quibbling, parsing, do not be surprised when the bell tolls for your Packard; collector cars already under the gun in Europe, Scandinavia, Britain.

Don't expect salvation from companies whose business model so weak it depends on evermore consumers and cheap labor. Every nation on earth with declining birthrate enjoys higher per capita GNP.

Am sure some here gathered live in the hinterlands so as long as they've got some lightly traveled roads nearby, don't fathom the fuss.

Our Packards were designed and built when our population a third, even a quarter today's.

In the '30s, five of the Supreme Court justices owned Packards, which were overwhelmingly the choice of the world's embassies, Packard advertising not just in Fortune, but the National Geographic, the New Yorker, and Literary Digest.

Perhaps those here gathered might focus accordingly.

So, any lamenting "wordy, fancy, and long winded" as one did my quotes from oil company chemical engineers re: zinc dialkyldithiophosphate, look at the big picture, future for our hobby, either we triage, focus on the overarching causes, or continue whining about symptoms, blaming "thuh guvment."

Some still think there's advantage in using motor oil formulated for Diesels in their Packards. While not a grievous mistake, the same old car owning oil company chemical engineers agree we are better served by one formulated for spark ignition gasoline engines.

Hilarious when guys not knowing the difference between silicon and silicone weigh in with opines about DOT-5 brake fluid, or think Optimas are "gel" batteries.

Many of us autoholics have a Packard because we wanted something a cut above, understated, with engineering refinement. May that extend beyond the garage.

Personally I DO consider this to be politics that is better posted elsewhere than on this site about Packards. Politics have no place here.