Can Synthetic Motor Oil Really Free Up Horsepower?

(1 of 2)

In the high performance automotive world, efforts are always being made on the part of hot rodders to extract every last bit of performance potential out of their vehicles. This quest for horsepower has lead to many breakthroughs in technology used both in racing and in normal street use. The draw back to this area of interest is that in some cases, companies take advantage of consumers with either unscrupulous marketing campaigns, inferior products or a combination of both.

One area of the performance hobby that generates a great deal of interest, and often times controversy, is in the area of motor oil. Oil companies have recognized the performance facet of the automotive world and have met consumers with products they claim will give them a performance advantage. As a result, over the years, consumers have seen an almost endless barrage of products and marketing directed towards the hot rodding crowd. In some cases, these products have been hyped up to a great extent and are ultimately found to provide little or no advantage in performance over similar and less costly alternatives.

For the general consumer, just seeing a specific product on the shelf can lead him or her to recall the latest television or magazine ad where fantastic performance gains and product superiority is touted. Often times this flashy marketing is accompanied by “independent lab tests” that seem to prove what the ad claims. Unfortunately, these ads can be deceiving at times and the independent tests can be less than scientific. One such test that is designed to get to the heart and pocket book of the hot rodder is comparison of products and their demonstrated horsepower gains on a dynamometer. This is a popular tool that is sometimes used by oil company marketing.

So what is ultimately the truth? Can one really believe reported dyno results that indicate one motor oil provides a horsepower advantage over another similar motor oil? Questions like these have caused a great amount of debate and cynicism among enthusiasts.

In this thread we will look at possible inconsistencies that can generally occur with dynamometer results, synthetic motor oil friction reduction theory, and look at two motor oil dyno comparison tests that have shown a horsepower increase in switching from conventional motor oil to synthetic motor oil.

Below, Dave Young of Mopar Muscle Magazine describes dynamometer correction factors, variables in dyno testing, and inconsistencies that can occur when comparing dyno results from more than one dyno. Mopar Muscle Magazine and Amsoil, Inc., team up every year for the AMSOIL/Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge. This challenge is conducted at the Competition Cams testing facility in Memphis Tennessee where all the engines are dynoed on Competition Cams Super Flow SF-902 Engine Dynamometer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Young, Mopar Muscle Magazine, (4/2008)

Dyno Testing and Correction Factors – When testing engines on a dyno, there are several things to keep in mind. First, a dyno is a manufactured piece of equipment, so no two are identical. This inconsistency is minimal, however, as most dyno manufactures claim no more than a one percent difference between any two of their machines. Next, an engine on a dyno is subject to the same environmental inconsistencies as an engine in a car, so if the weather is hot and the barometric pressure is low, the engine will make less power. For this reason, dyno manufactures utilize sophisticated software to monitor atmospheric conditions and correct for them so that each engine is measured to the same standard, regardless of the weather. The dyno software will apply a correction factor to the measured power numbers, adjusting them accordingly for non-standard weather conditions.

There are several correction factor standards commonly used by dyno software, and these too can be inconsistent. Correction factors can vary as much as four-percent between the correction factor that gives the most power versus the correction factor that is stingiest. For this reason, engine builders commonly dyno and rate their engines based on the correction factor that shows the most power, while research facilities are more worried about consistency. Comp’s research facility uses the latest SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) correction factor, which is considered stingy by most. So while all the engines in our contest would have likely shown more power if a more generous correction factor were used, using the SAE correction factor for all the engines made the playing field even and the contest fair.

Regardless of the weather or the correction factor used, there are other important considerations when dynoing an engine or a car. Each dyno cell is also different, and these differences aren’t easily corrected for. Turbulent air, exhaust leaking into the cell, and other factors can make dyno readings between dynos somewhat ambiguous. So the moral of the story is: Dyno numbers are really only valid when compared to numbers from the same dyno.

---

Theory: Synthetics and Friction Reduction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amsoil, Inc. (08/2007)

Friction Control – Uniform, smooth synthetic lubricant molecules slip across one another easily. That minimizes friction, which in turn, improves power and fuel economy because more of the energy released from fuel combustion reaches the wheels and moves the vehicle. The vehicle accelerates more quickly and powerfully because more of the fuel goes to moving the vehicle rather than to overcoming friction. The vehicle also works more efficiently, getting better fuel economy (more miles per gallon) for the same reason – more of the fuel goes to moving the vehicle than to overcoming friction.

---

The famed Horsepower TV Conventional vs. Royal Purple comparison

A few years back Horsepower TV performed a Conventional vs. Synthetic motor oil comparison utilizing a Chevy ZZ4 small-block engine. The motor oil used in this comparison was a Standard 10W-30 motor oil against Royal Purple 5W-30 High Performance Motor Oil. The results of this TEST reported a gain of 8 horsepower and 6ft.lbs of torque by switching from the Standard 10W-30 to the Royal Purple 5W-30 Synthetic. This test has since been highly publicized and talked about among automotive performance enthusiasts. But how does the testing procedure used in the comparison stack up scientifically?

One inconsistency that is not hard to catch is the fact that two oil viscosities are used in the comparison. Certainly, Horsepower TV host, Joe Elmore, describes that the 5W rating for the Royal Purple oil stands for the Winter Viscosity rating, while 30 is the rating at high engine temperatures which is the same as the standard motor oil tested. Although, this may seem like a reasonable explanation, there may be an increased margin of error in comparing two dissimilar oil viscosities.

A closer look at the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test D-445 provides data on motor viscosities at predetermined oil temperatures. In this case, we will look at the Kinematic Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt. Note that 40°C equals 104°F, and cSt stands for centistokes which is the measurement of an oils viscosity while in motion. Motor oil manufacturers generally provided this information in their product data sheets which can be found online. This data was found on the Royal Purple oil used in the test but since the exact brand of the conventional motor oil was not stated, we can only draw a general conclusion on what the actual viscosity would be.

5W – At 104 degrees Fahrenheit, the 5W-30 Royal Purple has a viscosity of 65.3

10W- At 104 degrees Fahrenheit, an SAE 10W rated brand name conventional motor oil generally has a viscosity of 70. However, since we don’t know the actual brand of the black bottle “standard motor oil” used in the test, we can only assume that the viscosity would actually be around 70. This could be a conservative estimate as a generic black bottle motor oil may not perform as well as a top name brand conventional motor oil. We can only assume at this point.

So why is the difference in a 5W and 10W an issue when both oils have the same 30 rating?

(2 of 2)

While both oils tested will have a similar viscosity at engine operating temperatures, they will start out thicker at cooler temperatures and thin at different rates until reaching normal operating temperature. Notice in the test that they performed both dyno pulls when the oil temperature was 160 degrees Fahrenheit. Since the normal operating temperature for motor oil is 212 degrees, this indicates that both oils would have been somewhat thicker than normal when the dyno pulls were made. Since 10W oil starts out thicker than a 5W oil regardless of type and brand, it would still be somewhat thicker than the 5W when the test was initiated at 160 degrees. Since motor oils are known to thin and thicken on none-linear curves, it is unknown exactly what that actual differences in viscosities would be at the test initiation temperature of 160. This is important because thinner viscosities generally cause less drag on internal engine parts and free up some horsepower. This would seem to indicate that when performing a comparison like this, the elimination of as many variables as possible could help to reach a more meaningful determination. In this case, comparing two like motor oil viscosities may have resulted in a different outcome.

Amsoil Commissioned Conventional vs. Synthetic Dyno Comparison

In early 2008, Amsoil, Inc., commissioned a motor oil comparison. The results of the comparison originally appeared in the June 2008 Amsoil Action News, a monthly publication that Amsoil provides to Amsoil Independent Dealers and Amsoil Preferred Customers. The result of the test can also be found in this LINK.

In this test, two early model Harley-Davidson motorcycles of a like model are tested on a motorcycle dyno as conducted by Cycle Solutions, Inc., a well known motorcycle tuner in the United Sates. The dyno testing on the two bikes is divided up into three segments.

Segment 1 - Is a baseline test that showed the horsepower and torque curves of the bikes with conventional motor oil.

Segment 2 - This test shows the horsepower and torque curves with Amsoil SAE 20W-50 Synthetic Motorcycle Oil.

Segment 3 – Showed the horsepower and torque curves with both Amsoil SAE 20W-50 Synthetic Motorcycle Oil and NGK Iridium Spark Plugs.

When deciphering the results of this test, the questions came up of what exactly was the viscosity of the conventional motor oil used in Segment 1 of the test? Were we up against the same variable of comparing two unlike motor oil viscosities as seen in the Horsepower TV test? I put inquiries in to Ed Newman, Director of Advertising at Amsoil, Inc., Christopher Waddell, Owner/Operator of Cycle Solutions, Inc., and David Anderson, Senior Analyst, Technical Sale Group at Amsoil, Inc. The question was posed as to what was the viscosity and brand of the conventional motor oil used in Segment 1 of the test. Below are their responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Newman, Director of Advertising at Amsoil, Inc. (11/21/2008)

The oil was a 20W-50 but I was unable to learn the brand. As you know from our White Papers we like to name names. In this instance the aim was AMSOIL vs. Conventional oils. Thanks for the inquiry. Also, look for an updated motorcycle oil white paper in the near future. It does lay things out very nicely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Waddell, Owner/Operator of Cycle Solutions, Inc. (11/24/2008)

I just tested the horsepower and torque improvement for them. Dave Anderson with Amsoil should and the test bikes had Harley syn 3. To the best of my knowledge they all had syn3 in them. Especially the se103 motors.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Anderson, Senior Analyst, Technical Sale Group at Amsoil, Inc. (11/26/2008)

Regarding the horse power comparison performed by Cycle Solutions, many additional bikes were tested other than those listed in the noted article. All, by the way, produced results similar to those found in the article. We chose not to mention the specific brand of oil that was in the bikes during the first segment of each test as we had not installed that product ourselves. We could only rely on what brand the bike owner thought was being used with no way to scientifically verifying it. With no way to assure the oil brand name it was felt prudent to only refer to them in a generic fashion. We hope you will find this helpful and should additional questions remain, please let us know.

---

From the above statements, one could argue that the results of the comparison could have been more scientifically founded had the testing procedure included the pre-installation of one specific conventional motor oil for Segment 1 of the comparison. One may also ponder what the implication of syn3 being used in Segment 1 of the comparison might be? To shed some light on these questions, it might be helpful to find out what the factory recommended motor oil is for the specific Harley-Davidson models used in the test. A call to a local Harley-Davidson Parts Department revealed that Harley-Davidson Screamin Eagle 103 Ultra motorcycle models come factory filled with Harley-Davidson brand Screamin' Eagle® SYN3® SAE 20W-50 Synthetic Motorcycle Lubricant, which also happens to be the recommend maintenance fill. More interestingly, further research revealed that the SYN3® lubricant is in fact a Group IV PAO based formulation. This would certainly be a surprising finding if it was ever proved that the SYN3® was in fact the oil used in the test rather than the reported conventional oil. It would further be of interest if it were verified that PAO based SYN3® was found to pose less friction reducing potential over the PAO based Amsoil counterpart. Learn more about PAO motor oil base stocks HERE. So while it remains uncertain as to whether or not the SYN3® or an unknown conventional lubricant was used in the crankcases of the motorcycles at the time of the testing, this comparison seemed to indicate a consistent 2.25% power gain by switching to Amsoil, regardless of the alternative oil used in the test.

Closing Thought

With much profit to be gained within the motor oil industry, oil companies use many different opportunities of attracting perspective consumers, especially those interested in performance. As discussed, one popular way of attracting performance enthusiasts is through dynamometer comparison. The dyno result can often prompt a consumer to purchase a product based off of the reported gains in power as tested. However, a closer look at how some of these tests are conducted may lead to further inquiry and examination of the results. With a little research, one can begin to notice many testing variables involved with this type of comparison. Examples of such variables can include differences in dyno equipment, dyno correction factors, atmospheric conditions, and how the test is conducted. So where does this ultimately leave the consumer when it comes time to spending the hard earned dollar? There really is no simple answer. However, when it comes to the area of the automotive performance hobby, research is the ultimate advantage.

CompSyn

next oil change, i am not doin synthetic. i'll do 4 qts of decent conventional, and a quart of lucas, and supposedly, thats better then any synthetic out there.



that is good info though. but $50+ for an oil change is a little rediculous to run royal purple

When you overload on a certain additive(s) like Lucas it neutralizes the other additives in your oil and that is a bad thing. Any SM rated oil has the proper amount of additives mixed so you need add nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LT1 > LS1

next oil change, i am not doin synthetic. i'll do 4 qts of decent conventional, and a quart of lucas, and supposedly, thats better then any synthetic out there.



that is good info though. but $50+ for an oil change is a little rediculous to run royal purple

---

But you can get 6qts. of AMSOIL for about $40 bucks.... To each his own I guess... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleeperC5

But you can get 6qts. of AMSOIL for about $40 bucks.... To each his own I guess... ;)

---

IS that what you use in your 9 sec Vette? Maybe I should switch to a higher grade oil and I too will run 9's in my car. I just use mobil one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packy

IS that what you use in your 9 sec Vette? Maybe I should switch to a higher grade oil and I too will run 9's in my car. I just use mobil one...

---

:haha:

what a TOOL !! :lmao:

Just a thought, but spending a shitpile of money on an engine to get it in the 9's (hell, even the 12's) then chincing out on the oil is just incredibly stupid.

Amen brother !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleeperC5

:haha:

what a TOOL !! :lmao:

---

I am not the one claiming to run 9's and not proving it... Also since when did Mobil 1 Synthetic become chincy?

I build engines to make horsepower, I dont buy oil to make horsepower, I buy oil to protect those engines.

oil companies that advertise better fuel economy and more horsepower, have found a weakness in consumers and turned into a marketing stunt. None of us bought our LSx cars for the fuel economy (granted they do well on fuel). We bought are cars for horsepower and looks. Now if you are so worried that a certain brand of oil can give you a couple extra horses, then I have a Tornado and some spark plugs to sell you.
Marking gimick RP and conventional oil on horsepower TV. RP is garabage but their marketing is priceless


If your racing is so tight against the competition then start changing your oil between every race.

Fresh oil vs. old oil will produce a bigger difference in horsepower then one oil type vs another, plus the fresh oil is safer on the main bearings over the thicker older oil.

Sarge has listed numerous times what oil to use and what not to use. Take his advice and keep your engine protected, or dont take is advice and spin and bearing.

In cold weather synthetic oild does a better job of lubricating an engine on cold starts. Just place two plastic cups on your porch in 0 degree weather overnight and put some conventional oil in one and synthetic in the other. In the morning try to pour them out. If that doesn't convince you of one of the benefits of synthetic in cold climates for everyday use then nothing will convince you.

As far as horsepower, fuel economy, and racing, synthetic does lubricate better, especially at extremely high temperatures, with less breakdown.

The performance and efficiency difference is not enough to justify the often significant price difference for everyday driving but if someo0ne is trying to squeak the last .01 second improvement out of a car at the track, then synthetic is what they are going to use.

I run 20-50 synthetic in my Camaro with the 383 stroker because I don'[t want to mess with oil changes as frequently and I don't want a problem if I go eight rounds of racing and start hot lapping because of a track noise ordinance late on a Sunday night.

I run synthetic 5-30 in my daily driver because it gets a lot of cold starts in the winter. My wife uses cheapie conventional oil in her daily driver because the dealership where she works changes it for her at a discount. I could care less because the bottom line is that clean oil is the single best thing you can maintain in your engine, regardless of synthetic or conventional.

I have two "spare" beaters, a 1990 Lincoln and a 1999 Sebring. because they don't get used much and hardly ever in the winter I just run NAPA conventional 5-30 in them and change it every spring or 3,000 miles, whichever comes first. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packy

Also since when did Mobil 1 Synthetic become chincy?

---

Amsoil has been proven to be better than Mobil 1... :yup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleeperC5

Amsoil has been proven to be better than Mobil 1... :yup:

---

Yes we can read but in my inferior little 10 sec WS6 and Cobra I think it is good enough. As stated before maybe if I put Amsoil in one of them it would run a 9 like your badass new made up Vette does...;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LT1 > LS1

next oil change, i am not doin synthetic. i'll do 4 qts of decent conventional, and a quart of lucas, and supposedly, thats better then any synthetic out there.

that is good info though. but $50+ for an oil change is a little rediculous to run royal purple

---

Just curious, where did you see that Lucas + Conventional is better than any synthetic?

A while back the Lucas oil stabilizer was talked about at this LS1.com thread, Lucas oil stabilizer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tnthub

As far as horsepower, fuel economy, and racing, synthetic does lubricate better, especially at extremely high temperatures, with less breakdown.

The performance and efficiency difference is not enough to justify the often significant price difference for everyday driving but if someo0ne is trying to squeak the last .01 second improvement out of a car at the track, then synthetic is what they are going to use.

---

You’re probably right, the performance gain from switching to a top tier synthetic in a race application may not net any more than a hundredth of a second give or take.

For a street application, you may see some rate of return with better fuel economy to offset the higher cost of the synthetic. For example, the SAE J1321 Joint TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure - Type II has demonstrated an improvement in fuel economy from using a top tier synthetic. But the real rate of return comes from the extended drain intervals that are made possible by top tier base stocks and additives found in some synthetics.

Read more on motor oil performance variables at this LS1.com thread, Base Oils & Lubricant Performance.

I’m liking the vigorous debate!

CompSyn

Jesus Christ cliff notes????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INMY01TA

Jesus Christ cliff notes????

---

x fucking 2

and the purple text makes my eyes hurt, I'm on the black background, LOL

Not to bash anyone, but I think everyone needs to keep in mind that no matter what, every sponsor on this site is going to support and pitch his own product, personally I'll take this with a grain of salt.

As for the part about dyno testing being unreliable, I see the point about the horsepower tv test not being performed at the correct temperature, but they used the same exact engine and same exact dyno on the same exact day, performing the tests one after the other. The variables were as close and fair as would be physically possible, so you really can't discredit it with the "Inconsistent dyno variables" argument stated on the second post of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedVertTA

Not to bash anyone, but I think everyone needs to keep in mind that no matter what, every sponsor on this site is going to support and pitch his own product, personally I'll take this with a grain of salt.

As for the part about dyno testing being unreliable, I see the point about the horsepower tv test not being performed at the correct temperature, but they used the same exact engine and same exact dyno on the same exact day, performing the tests one after the other. The variables were as close and fair as would be physically possible, so you really can't discredit it with the "Inconsistent dyno variables" argument stated on the second post of this thread.

---

You can get different #s with same car, same dyno one pull after another within several horsepower. The test means nothing to me. Royal Purple is thin, naturally a thin oil's gonna free up some hp, but at what cost?

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your input and objectivity.

Here are a couple other thoughts to consider…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedVertTA

As for the part about dyno testing being unreliable,

---

The information provided about dyno testing was not to in any way prove that dyno testing is unreliable. It was only mentioned to show that there are testing variables involved with dynamometer equipment that could or could not play into motor oil comparative testing results; something to consider when looking at these type tests, weather it’s Royal Purple, Amsoil, or whoever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedVertTA

I see the point about the horsepower tv test not being performed at the correct temperature, but they used the same exact engine and same exact dyno on the same exact day, performing the tests one after the other. The variables were as close and fair as would be physically possible, so you really can't discredit it with the "Inconsistent dyno variables" argument stated on the second post of this thread .

---

In all farness, the post said nothing about discrediting any test. Rather, it was alluded to that there were some observable variables involved with the Horsepower TV test as well as the Amsoil test. The reader was left to draw their own conclusion.

Thanks again,

CompSyn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INMY01TA

You can get different #s with same car, same dyno one pull after another within several horsepower.

---

True, a dynamometer is basically mechanical measuring device. So it’s highly improbable that no two tests will be exactly the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INMY01TA

The test means nothing to me. Royal Purple is thin, naturally a thin oil's gonna free up some hp, but at what cost?

---

Actually, the Royal Purple SAE 5W-30 High Performance Motor Oil used in the test is really not that thin comparably. All SAE graded motor oils have tolerance specs to meet, so the viscosity will be relatively close from oil-to-oil.

Consider,

Royal Purple SAE 5W-30 High Performance Motor Oil

Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt ASTM D-445 = 65.3
Viscosity @ 100°C, cSt ASTM D-445 = 11.0

Pennzoil SAE 5W-30 Conventional (Yellow Bottle)

Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt ASTM D-445 = 63.9
Viscosity @ 100°C, cSt ASTM D-445 = 10.5

So by comparison, Pennzoil Conventional is thinner by a tad, than the Royal Purple High Performance Synthetic.

CompSyn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INMY01TA

You can get different #s with same car, same dyno one pull after another within several horsepower. The test means nothing to me. Royal Purple is thin, naturally a thin oil's gonna free up some hp, but at what cost?

---

I am not arguing in favor of Royal Purple. You believe you missed the point of my post, I was commenting to reflect on the validity of the Horsepower TV test, not commenting to support Royal Purple oil.

I also didn't say the test was perfect I'm just saying its as fair as it gets. Or you you rather them test 2 different cars/motors on different dynos, in different locations, on different days, in different weather?

I honestly don't think the test could have been performed under fairer conditions with the exception of the fact that during both tests the engine was not heated to the proper operating temperature during each run.

Again, I am not trying to support any side, I am not a sponsor, and I am definitely not trying to sell anything.

I dont think it is as fair as it gets. I see exactly what the OP was saying in regards to using to different viscosity oils. A thinner oil was used and is proven to make more power. Also with the motorcycle tests all bikes made more horsepower when they received an oil change. They had old oil, needed an oil change, got it and ran better.. Go figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juiced99ws6

I dont think it is as fair as it gets. I see exactly what the OP was saying in regards to using to different viscosity oils. A thinner oil was used and is proven to make more power.

---

Ok you have a valid point I overlooked, the test may not have been fair in that area too, so there are two things wrong with the test, viscosity and operating temperature.

But other than these two factors I do believe the conditions of the test were fair. I'm talking specifically about dyno factors. Yes you can get different results on the same motor even one run after another, but that's sure better than testing a different motor under different conditions. Does anyone else have a better idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedVertTA

Does anyone else have a better idea?

---

You guys are doing an awesome job at critiquing the testing shown in the post. Really! Critical thought can be a good thing which can often lead to new areas of thought and innovation. This is being demonstrated here as you’re asking for thoughts on improved testing procedures. So allow me pose this question. If you had an unlimited budget and commissioned your very own lubricant/dyno testing sequence, how would that test look? In your mind, what would be the ideal test?

Be creative, we can have some fun with this…

CompSyn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedVertTA

Ok you have a valid point I overlooked, the test may not have been fair in that area too, so there are two things wrong with the test, viscosity and operating temperature.

But other than these two factors I do believe the conditions of the test were fair. I'm talking specifically about dyno factors. Yes you can get different results on the same motor even one run after another, but that's sure better than testing a different motor under different conditions. Does anyone else have a better idea?

---

Yes actually I believe there is a better idea. As CompSyn stated these tests can hardly scientifically prove anything because of the variables. However to remove the variables, and yes this is a test that will take some time to perform but would be worth it, you just take 3-5 cars. Drain and Flush engines and then fill with conventional oil. You run it for 3k miles and you check the viscocity of the oil to see how much breakdown you have gotten. Then you take the average of the 3-5 cars and that is your result. Then you do the same with the synthetic. Now we all pretty much know the result will be that the synthetic is definatly going to have less break down. So I would say that it is fair to say that upon changing your oil you will recieve a bump in horsepower because of less friction placed on internal components and pending a test of sorts the Synthetic should have a more sustained horsepower level due to less chemical breakdown of the oil itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juiced99ws6

Yes actually I believe there is a better idea. As CompSyn stated these tests can hardly scientifically prove anything because of the variables. However to remove the variables, and yes this is a test that will take some time to perform but would be worth it, you just take 3-5 cars. Drain and Flush engines and then fill with conventional oil. You run it for 3k miles and you check the viscocity of the oil to see how much breakdown you have gotten. Then you take the average of the 3-5 cars and that is your result. Then you do the same with the synthetic. Now we all pretty much know the result will be that the synthetic is definatly going to have less break down. So I would say that it is fair to say that upon changing your oil you will recieve a bump in horsepower because of less friction placed on internal components and pending a test of sorts the Synthetic should have a more sustained horsepower level due to less chemical breakdown of the oil itself.

---

That's a good idea, very long term as it may be. But the people performing the test could run the cars harder at different points in time, which would unfairly contribute to wear. Also, you may have to take into consideration "when" the tests are run. People tend to change driving habits seasonally, and if the tests were conducted during different seasons, you could see skewed results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedVertTA

That's a good idea, very long term as it may be. But the people performing the test could run the cars harder at different points in time, which would unfairly contribute to wear. Also, you may have to take into consideration "when" the tests are run. People tend to change driving habits seasonally, and if the tests were conducted during different seasons, you could see skewed results.

---

well that is why I said t do 3-5 cars of each. any test of this nature would have to have some variables and you would have to take an average. My bigger point however was just the fact that tst a horsepower increase from an oil change itself is just pointless. I mean other variables would be the fact that there are better and worse brands of conventional oil. Which would you use? My guess is if you are trying to prove that your synthetic is better you are ging to use a watered down gas station brand conventional oil to tset against. The tests will never be fair however it has already been proven that synthetic oils have less breakdown which means they are better for the long term. The horsepower increase should be a non issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CompSyn

You guys are doing an awesome job at critiquing the testing shown in the post. Really! Critical thought can be a good thing which can often lead to new areas of thought and innovation. This is being demonstrated here as you’re asking for thoughts on improved testing procedures. So allow me pose this question. If you had an unlimited budget and commissioned your very own lubricant/dyno testing sequence, how would that test look? In your mind, what would be the ideal test?

Be creative, we can have some fun with this…

CompSyn

---

For the most part I can not think of many ways to change the test, but the most important way is with sheer numbers. The bigger your sample size the closer to an average you can find. Of course the problem is time and money. Hard to get the right number to really help remove the odd ball in the numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juiced99ws6

well that is why I said t do 3-5 cars of each. any test of this nature would have to have some variables and you would have to take an average. My bigger point however was just the fact that tst a horsepower increase from an oil change itself is just pointless. I mean other variables would be the fact that there are better and worse brands of conventional oil. Which would you use? My guess is if you are trying to prove that your synthetic is better you are ging to use a watered down gas station brand conventional oil to tset against. The tests will never be fair however it has already been proven that synthetic oils have less breakdown which means they are better for the long term. The horsepower increase should be a non issue.

---

Don'r get me wrong I think your test is a great idea, I'm just saying driving habits vary with season. Myself for example, personally I have to admit, I drive less and more calmly during the winter and in the summer I drive more frequently, floor it around every corner, and go racing. If you tested my vehicle there would be much more breakdown during the summer than during the winter just because of my habits.

So you could have half the cars test conventional during the winter and synthetic in the summer and have the other half test synthetic during the winter and convetional in the summer. Just switch it up.

I prefer to run mobil 1 year round, mostly for a lil added protection if i cant work an oil change in right away, IE when i was in astralia i left my car with my dad and when i got back i was at 13k miles on a single oil change.... i bout had a shit fit, the oil was black as hell, and ran some 0w-30 for 1k miles and changed it again to kind flush it out a bit...

tell me this is not a debate whether synthetic frees more power than conventional. sure that 10w vs 5w royal purple dyno test is bogus, and sure there are products that are lame and the companies make bogus claims. . .but we aren't talkin bout zmax or duralube here, we talkin quality synthetics. the power gains from synthetic to synthetic (mobil to amsoil) is minimal, but they have their DISTINCT differences. hell, amsoil doesn't even advertise their products, they leave it up to their dealers to. forget the discrepancies from some clown's dyno results, we all know synthetic lasts longer, is less susceptible to thermal breakdown, "frees" more power, etc etc. what brand you choose is up to you and what you are doing with your car. some synthetics have advantages over others and it's up to you to decide whether they are worth the extra cost for your purpose.

Off topic, but I gota say I love your avatar pic.

right on :Patriot:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packy

I am not the one claiming to run 9's and not proving it... Also since when did Mobil 1 Synthetic become chincy?

---

Since they switched to group 3 after suing Castrol and losing. But why change pricing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedVertTA

Not to bash anyone, but I think everyone needs to keep in mind that no matter what, every sponsor on this site is going to support and pitch his own product, personally I'll take this with a grain of salt.

---

No matter how much they charge for a product that is no better than a competitor.

I love an oil thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CompSyn

(1 of 2)

In the high performance automotive world, efforts are always being made on the part of hot rodders to extract every last bit of performance potential out of their vehicles. This quest for horsepower has lead to many breakthroughs in technology used both in racing and in normal street use. The draw back to this area of interest is that in some cases, companies take advantage of consumers with either unscrupulous marketing campaigns, inferior products or a combination of both.

---

Or changing for the worse, and not saying anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarge

When you overload on a certain additive(s) like Lucas it neutralizes the other additives in your oil and that is a bad thing. Any SM rated oil has the proper amount of additives mixed so you need add nothing.

---

No, oil company producers didn't forget to add things. You are absolutely right. No need to add to name brand oils today.

your exactly right!! Amsoil is simply the best there is PERIOD!!!!!!
You the man

P.S. your vette is fucking bad asssss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleeperC5

Amsoil has been proven to be better than Mobil 1... :yup:

---

I am a fucking dumb ass and know nothing about synthetics. Sarge please ban me off this forum. I AM A DUMB ASS!!:true:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaviDyn

No matter how much they charge for a product that is no better than a competitor.

I love an oil thread.



Or changing for the worse, and not saying anything.



No, oil company producers didn't forget to add things. You are absolutely right. No need to add to name brand oils today.

---

Is amsoil is the best. The 2nd Is Mobil 1. Everthing else doesn't matter to me. As far as oil filters amsoil and mobil 1 and K&N.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My94ZZZ

I am a fucking dumb ass and know nothing about synthetics. Sarge please ban me off this forum. I AM A DUMB ASS!!:true:

---

OK.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HotRodz28

Is amsoil is the best. The 2nd Is Mobil 1. Everthing else doesn't matter to me. As far as oil filters amsoil and mobil 1 and K&N.

---

Amsoil is certainly good. But they are a group IV PAO. Which is as good as anything in your car.

Better oil is POE, poly esther oils. That is what Redline is. But that alone doesn't make it best, you have to do it right. And they do. For a price.

POE costs more to make than PAO. Amsoil can not justify their price, other than you are all willing to pay. Then again, free markets are just about that, and that is how it should be.

Mobil 1 used to be group IV. Before they sued Castrol and lost. They failed to mention changes. Two oils were tested and found they switched to group III, like Castrol, since Castrol won in court, allowin III to be called Synthetic. They are no longer near the top of the heap. On the other hand group III synthetics are so much better than convetional, it is hard to fault them. Except in pricing once again. They didn't change the price to reflect the change in product. The test was conducted in 2006.

The only Castrol that is a group IV is German Castrol, which isn't sold anywhere in the US anymore. It was the green oil. That is a dye, as all synthetic has no color when made. The oil companies color for your benifit. Autozone was said to carry the German Castrol, but I haven't seen it.

And Sarge, well done. The man certainly has done his homework. I don't have anything in front of me, but should. I had to look a few things up on google because I don't have research in front of me.

Well done, Sarge.

Well there was no lawsuit between Mobil and Castrol. It was a arbitration in front of the ad council. That's all. GRPIII is so far advanced of what we had ten years ago it renders comparison to PAO mute. Add packs. Focus should be on add packs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaviDyn

Better oil is POE, poly esther oils. That is what Redline is. But that alone doesn't make it best, you have to do it right. And they do. For a price.

---

Interesting! Can you tell everyone here that Redline motor oils are 100% POE?

In reality, there are no known 100% ester motor oils for automotive use currently being marketed in the United States. There have not been any 100% ester motor oils since the early-to-mid 70s when Amsoil, Zenex, Eon and a few others were diester based motor oils. See also the LS1.com thread, Tom Schaefer: An Introduction.

Redline motor oils use a PAO/POE blend as does Amsoil in many of their top tier synthetic motor oils. The only difference is that Redline has done a great job of creating the illusion that their oils are predominantly POEs. Check out Redlines exact wording below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Line Synthetic Oil Corp.

“Red Line lubricants are unique because they contain PE Polyol Ester base stocks”

Cited HERE

---

So as per Red Line wording, their oils “contain” a certain amount of POEs but notice how they do not say what the exact content is. No company will come out and tell you what their formulation consists of so many consumers go around believing half truths based on obscure wording from marketing ads and product data sheets. If an official statement comes out from a motor oil company stating exactly what their formulations consist of, let's see it.

For more on the current state of ester formulation in motor oils, check out the LS1.com thread, Esters in Motor Oil.

CompSyn

just like how RP says it frees up hidden horsepower

double post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suede

just like how RP says it frees up hidden horsepower

---

its an accurate statement. anything you do to tune up your car frees up horsepower :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaviDyn

The only Castrol that is a group IV is German Castrol, which isn't sold anywhere in the US anymore. It was the green oil. That is a dye, as all synthetic has no color when made. The oil companies color for your benifit. Autozone was said to carry the German Castrol, but I haven't seen it.

---

German Castrol "Gold" is still sold at Autozone and now at Pep Boys as well. I use it in the Trans Am. :yup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INMY01TA

German Castrol "Gold" is still sold at Autozone and now at Pep Boys as well. I use it in the Trans Am. :yup:

---

Yup, you can still buy it. Its not green, and its called Castrol "European Blend," but you can still get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaviDyn

The only Castrol that is a group IV is German Castrol, which isn't sold anywhere in the US anymore. It was the green oil. That is a dye, as all synthetic has no color when made. The oil companies color for your benifit. Autozone was said to carry the German Castrol, but I haven't seen it.

---

Actually, I have recently been finding it in Autozone and have stocked up. Not sure why it was not carried for a while but it is back in the store.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packy

I am not the one claiming to run 9's and not proving it... Also since when did Mobil 1 Synthetic become chincy?

---

Mobil 1 isn't all that. Read this.
http://www.ls1.com/forums/showthread...&highlight=oil