axl911

Check it out.

From PP... there is a difference in horsepower and oil brand.

http://www.performanceoilnews.com/oi...nst_oils.shtml

axl911

From this thread on PP.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showt...367300&page=35

Also on the oil test link posted...'*This "shootout" appears to be sponsored by Amsoil (no affiliation) so that possible bias needs to be taken into account when evaluating the results.'

Charles Navarro

Check the same thread on Pelican, we did our own HP shootout last week at Aircooled Technology with a very well blueprinted 914 engine, so it's a much closer comparison to a 911 in that respect with running clearances and such, being aircooled. Oils that made big HP in previous tests, this time were totally different in their outcomes. Swepco and Brad Penn were pretty much the winners, followed very closely by Royal Purple Max Cycle 20w50. In the past, Amsoil and Mobil 1 V-Twin were pretty much tied and the winners, not the case this time! All we can say is that it is 100% worth blueprinting your engine and using coated bearings (this 2056cc type 4 engine made 170hp 9:1 on pump gas with only 28 degrees of timing.)

We also tested one companies EOS alterative that claimed more hp too, it killed HP, except when used with their own oil, which tested the lowest in the group of oils we tested anyways. Lighter weight oils also didn't really gain anything compared to the thicker oils, which was as suprising as the fact that a larger oil pump didn't use more HP (something that we found in the testing we did last year on a smaller, run of the mill 1915cc type 1 which was only 110HP).

We also did a video and posted it on youtube summing up the results:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYV8OD8Ohlg&feature=user

Stealth 993

Here is what I hate about all these "test". YOU HAVE TO COMPARE APPLES to APPLES

You can't take a 20-50 & rate it HP wise to a 0-40. The 0-40 will win, it's a much lower viscosity. They did another test like this where they ran 40wt dyno, then put in 0-40w, oh, guess what, the 0-40 out performed it HP wise.

It would be like taking maple syrup vs water in a flow test.

In the real world I will give up 5hp for a cooler running, less friction, more protection oil.

dcdude

Remember, Swepco and Brad Penn also have higher levels of ZDDP (zinc-phosporous) for better protection of our cam lobes and other critical surfaces, plus they're relatively affordable!

Charles Navarro

Well, not always so. The Brad Penn 20w50 won peak hp this time around. Swepco was peak torque, but won overall average HP too.

We tried some 0w20, 0w30, 10w40, 15w40, and 20w50, and the lighter oils did not produce the power we would have thought, nor lower BSFC #s (fuel consumption). In some testing we did last year, the best HP was made with a 20w50 again, rather than lighter oils. Actually, the worst power of the day was from a Xw20!

Just take a look at the results before dissing them. They back up everything we've been saying, it's just a bonus now that it seems the Brad Penn and Swepco, on top of giving us good protection, also make some good HP too.

RallyJon

Charles, can you provide some theory as to how a more viscous oil can make more power? Goes against common sense for sure.

Charles Navarro

To be honest with you, I can't. All I can guess is that especially with this engine, it was very well blueprinted and all the bearings were coated. Maybe the hydrodynamic losses associated with more viscous oils is counteracted by the coated bearings.

When we did our tesing last year, we even tried putting a larger pump (it was a type 1 vw engine), and we actually saw no losses from a larger oil pump (24 vs 26 vs 30mm), which too goes against common sense.

Most definately the HP spread on this engine was nothing like what we say in the slapped together type 1 we used last time. There was a 18HP spread there between the Brad Penn and the Amsoil Harley/Mobil 1 V-Twin in the 110hp 1915cc type 1, where this time, Brad Penn made more HP than the Mobil 1 V-Twin in the 170hp 2056cc type 4.

The shop that I did the dyno testing with was planning on doing some additional testing this week, possibly on their own f-production engine, but obviously they aren't going to do 18 different oils there - don't want to tire out the full on race engine before it even gets in the car!

Basal Skull

how do the engines get 'cleaned' out between oil type changes? some oil/additives bind to metal and depending on the order that the different oils are tested (if they are not torn down and cleaned out between tests) residual oil 'A' can contaminate oil 'B' and make testing worth less...(been there and done that...)

Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems

You raise a good point and I'm sure you know that its virtually impractical to disassemble and clean the innards of the engine between each set of dyno runs.

I've done similar testing as Charles (using a 911 engine) and in one round, we tested 2 oils back-to-back to observe any changes. The tank, and lines were removed, cleaned and flushed between each test and the filters were replaced (one in the pressure and one in the scavenge circuit) but the engine was not touched.

One of the oils gave an immediate 8-9 HP bump over the other so we retested the first product and noted the drop. Each dyno run was repeated twice: A then B, then A then B, cleaning the system each time as noted above. Needless to say, this was a time-consuming process that took a whole day to complete.

It was obvious at the end of the day that one product gave an immediate, measureable, and repeatable power increase over the other one that was well within the resolution of our engine dyno.

Although taking the test engine apart each time to thoroughly clean the insides would certainly be ideal, IMHO its possible to get definitive and repeatable results without total engine disassembly. FYI, the first oil was a well-known synthetic and the other was Swepco 306 and the latter product was the one that registered the power gains.

Mark in Baltimore

One of the few instances of an A-B, A-B test that I've ever seen on this board. Kudos to you, Steve.

Charles Navarro

We did similar to Steve, purged the external cooler and lines, new filter, then blew air through the oiling system in the engine and watched oil literally pour out of the sump plate, even after we had drained it. We collected the oil and put it back in the same container it came out of (that's what all the containers in the video are), to see how much, if any, oil was lost. I'd say no more than a pint was unrecoverable at any given point, and most of of the time, everything came out that went in. It helped draining the oil when it was 220+F too.

Basal Skull

I have experience that if 'A' is the good oil, you have to change to 'B' perhaps 2 to 3 fills or more before the residual effect of A is negated. It does make interpretation difficult. If you are testing an oil which contains chlorinated hydorcarbons, all you need is literally 'fumes' from the oil containing it and it will affect the worse oils' function (make it better).

Doug Hillary

Hi,
Basal Skull - You are indeed correct. The residual effects of one lubricant on another are very complex - especially now with some wonderful new Anti-Wear chemicals being sucessfully used in some of the latest lubricants
Of course any meaningful comparison is surely of similar viscosities - comparing disparite viscosities is largely meaningless!

To correctly compare one lubricant to another the engine must be conditioned and purged and then the first lubricant must be conditioned and tested. This lubricant and the engine is then purged/conditioned and the new lubricant conditioned before testing begins again

Be careful of claims of extra-power and etc. I would seriously doubt that a more viscous lubricant will deliver more HP than a less viscous one unless it is so "thin" a "lubricity" breakdown was occuring
In V8Supecar development here M1 0w20 (racing) was trialled against M1 15w-50 (race blend) and an immediate and significant gain in HP (25) was attained. For reasons of fuel dilution the 15w-50 blend was/is used in the real world of long distance racing

Regards
Doug

matt777

I think their is more to lubrication than just viscosity as the test shows.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the SAE viscosity numbers. With multigrade oils we are primarily interested in the second number which is related to the viscosity at 100C. The first number is how the oil acts at low temps. Thus, a 0W-40 and a 15W-40 may have very similar viscosities at normal engine operating temperatures.