Can Synthetic Motor Oil Really Free Up Horsepower?

[CompSyn]

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.

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

[RedVertTA]

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.

[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. 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.

[RedVertTA]

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?

[CompSyn]

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

[juiced99ws6]

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.

[RedVertTA]

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.

[juiced99ws6]

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.

[Bottesini]

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.

[RedVertTA]

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.

[suede]

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...

[side2000]

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.

[RedVertTA]

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

[side2000]

right on

[NaviDyn]

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.

[NaviDyn]

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.

(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.

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.

[My94ZZZ]

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

P.S. your vette is fucking bad asssss.

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

[My94ZZZ]

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

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.

[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.

[Sarge]

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

OK.....