

The mysterious illness striking down old cars - CaptainZapp
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/11/tribology

======
sokoloff
Don't take advice on your high-performance, flat tappet camshaft break-in from
the Economist anymore than you'd take global economic advice from Car and
Driver.

Cam break-in on flat tappet systems is not a mysterious process. Use the right
assembly lube, fire the engine and don't let it idle but instead run it up to
2500 RPMs and vary the RPMs for the first 15 minutes, and if you're anal (or
the flat-tappet engine is in an aircraft), cut open and inspect the oil filter
media at the oil change.

Implying that a poorly made or improperly broken in camshaft is failing in 300
miles because of new oil additive packages makes me question why the Economist
is publishing poor articles on fringe motoring topics. Improper assembly, pre-
lube or engine start of fresh rebuilds has been wiping cam lobes for 6+
decades now.

PS: For infrequently used engines with flat tappet, splash-oiled cams, use
CamGuard: <http://www.aslcamguard.com/> It's not cheap ($26 a pint or so), but
it's well regarded in the piston aircraft world (where light airplanes
frequently sit for weeks at a time, unlike your daily driver, but very much
like your occassional usage of a 60s Mustang).

~~~
oiuyftgrghjk
The economist is publishing articles blaming 'the greenies' for your car
failing by banning toxic metals in your oil.

It's a standard economist article - they are basically just fox news with a
higher reading age.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
The Economist is certainly not "Fox News with a higher reading age". Name me
one other publication covering: business and politics. They have decent
quarterly summary supplements on technology and good weekly science sections.

They have a bias in both their writing and their world view, but so does any
publication, including HN. As long as you understand the bias then you
shouldn't be led astray too far. There are of course articles which don't
reach their average quality, but the quality is generally quite high. Higher
than any other news and analysis publication I know of which is published
every week.

Edit: grammar

~~~
CaptainZapp
Add to that that it's one of the rare publications willing to admit mistakes
in judgment

One of the more recent examples is the Iraq war, which they supported. They
don't deny that they did that, but think it was a mistake in hindsight. Note
that this is quite different then hanging the flag into the direction of the
wind of public opinion.

Opinion journalism? Hell yes, and they'd probably be the first to admit this.

There are areas where I very much disagree with their opinion. This is not
only to be expected, but it's actually quite rewarding for the reader.

See, reading a well reasoned and researched opinion, which differs
fundamentally from my own, actually makes me think through such reasoning and
it helps to achieve a world view, which has far more shades of gray then black
& white.

[edited, typo]

------
marcrosoft
From someone in the oil and oil additive business I can say that this article
is actually pretty accurate compared to most of the crap out there.

However, ZDDP is an anti-wear additive not an extreme pressure additive. In
the article it says, "camshafts exert pressures in excess of 200,000lb per
square inch" which means you need an extreme pressure agent.

While ZDDP is effective, it does cause catalytic converter problems in
vehicles made after 2006 (since they switched the metal in them), so don't run
out and put this in your new cars.

Mark, www.sfrcorp.com

~~~
shasta
You left off the brilliant conversion to metric - "200,000lb per square inch
(14,000 kg/cm²)"

------
futuremint
This commenter gets annoyed by authors who write about themselves in the third
person. This comment writer suspects the article's author thinks he makes
himself sound less ignorant when he writes in the third person. Maybe the
economist's editorial guidelines demand pieces light on content (or facts to
backup the premise) be written this way to distract the reader; thinks this
comment writer.

~~~
JimmyL
The Economist has a particular and well-known style guide that all writing for
the publication must follow, be it for the online version (like this piece) or
otherwise - and as others have pointed out, one of their styles is using the
third person and "this/your correspondent" as opposed to the first person.
Similarly, they don't put author by-lines on their magazine pieces (and only
initials on their online ones), although die-hard Economist fans can often
recognize individual authors by their phrasing and subject matter.

If you're interested in more of their particular quirks of style - or want to
see how well-specified the writing style is for a major magazine - most of
their guide is available online at
<http://www.economist.com/research/styleguide/>.

~~~
nollidge
They also have a language blog [1] which often expounds on some of the details
and consequences of their and others' style guides.

[1] <http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson>

~~~
futuremint
Thanks for pointing that out. I think that blog will get added to my regular
reading, I like to geek out on language (programming languages mostly, but
English too).

------
ejs
I am not sure why the economist is producing articles about flat tappet cam
engines. It is well known that new engine oils contain lower amounts of ZDDP,
it is known to harm catalytic converters. It is also not as necessary in
roller engines (anything new).

Overall engine oils have gotten much better, but if you run a flat tappet cam
most people use a break-in oil, or an additive like GM EOS. Or use a heavy
duty engine oil (HDEO) like a diesel oil.

But really anyone who needs these things would not be reading the economist
for advice about valve spring pressures wiping cam lobes. As another commenter
mentioned, with a good assembly lube (lots of moly) and pre-lube the engine
should be fine. Plus if you are running a flat tappet cam the design of the
engine will allow you to easily pre-oil it via the distributer shaft.

But zddp additive or a racing/HDEO is a good idea for this type of engine.

~~~
fr0sty
The Economist publishes these articles for the same reason it ran an obituary
on Martin Tytell[1]. It makes an interesting read, informs people about
something they otherwise would never encounter and helps to broaden, however
slightly people's mental models of the world.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Tytell>

------
cullenking
Be wary of the advice recommended by the article - it gets alot right, but it
fails to mention that using a motorcycle specific oil inside of an engine has
trade-offs. Motorcycle oils typically (depending on the type of motorcycle) do
not have friction modifiers. This is because the clutch on many motorcycles is
a wet-clutch, meaning it is bathed in engine oil. The nicer new oils have
friction modifiers to make them more effective, which causes these clutches to
slip. Hence, motorcycle oils don't have these additives.

Now, cars ran fine before the advent of friction modified oil additives,
however they are definitely a good thing for the longevity of any engine. It's
always a trade-off!

------
chrisbennet
The author's views are consistent with those of the (air cooled) Porsche
engine building community. Here in the US, Brad Penn 20W-50 and Valvoline VR-1
Racing 20W-50 have the necessary Zinc.

