A Slippery Subject...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
2,569
Location
College Dorm...
 -


"The trick is to create an oil that requires less power to pump through the engine yet still delivers sufficient protection. Oil pressure is an indication of resistance to flow in the engine, so it makes sense that reducing the oil pressure (while maintaining sufficient flow to protect the internal components) will result in more power. Drag racers have been doing this for years with excellent results.

Farner showed us some Quaker State research that tested several different weights of synthetics to dig up some horsepower from this thin-oil theory. Quaker State actually tested five different multi-grade synthetics on a 300hp small-block Chevy, including a range of oils between 10W60 and an incredibly thin 0W10. While you might think that the thinnest oil would have the best shot at making the most power, the 0W20 turned out to be the best in terms of both peak power and best overall power. We're talking about minor power differences of around 8 hp between the 10W60 oil and the 0W20, which is still a great change based on how easy it was to make this power.

This test looked intriguing, so we decided to do our own testing with a much higher horsepower small-block. Our test "Mule" is Bill Mitchell's 454ci small-block Chevy that we spooled up on the dyno at Westech. For our test, we limited the testing to three different-weight oils starting with a petroleum based 20W50, then to Quaker State's full synthetic 10W30, and finally to Quaker State's full synthetic 5W20.

During the testing, we noted that the 20W50 oil temperature seemed to remain much more stable during the testing. As we tested the thinner oils, each less viscous oil seemed to gain oil temperature much more quickly than its thicker cousins. We also saw an accompanying slight drop in oil pressure as we tested the thinner oils, which we expected. Once we assembled all the data, it appeared that the thinner 5W20 oil performed much better, but after averaging the data, compared to the thicker 20W50, the average power was only marginally better.

Average power is probably the better way to look at this data, since the one 10hp gain at 5,000 rpm is not consistent with the other tests. Plus, this would even out had we tested each combination over 10 runs and averaged the numbers. The focus of this exercise is that thinner oil will support a slight power gain and the only real cost is around $10 or $15 per oil change. But besides the potential power gain, there are significant advantages to using synthetic oil, especially if you plan on running your engine hard at the next track day. The engine you save just might be your own!

Test 1: We baselined the engine with a petroleum-based 20W50 oil. All testing kept the oil temperature between 190 and 200 degrees F.

Test 2: We changed to Quake State 10W30, including the oil in the filter.

Test 3: Changed oil again, this time to Quaker State 5W20."

code:

RPM Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Diff.

HP HP HP HP

3,000 288 289 288 -

3,500 343 344 345 + 2

4,000 408 410 409 + 1

4,500 476 476 476 -

5,000 522 526 532 +10

5,500 549 551 555 + 6

6,000 561 567 562 + 1

Peak 572 570 569 - 3

Avg 465 466 467 + 2


http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0409_slip/index.html

[ February 08, 2005, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Jelly ]
 
Jelly - During the testing, we noted that the 20W50 oil temperature seemed to remain much more stable during the testing. As we tested the thinner oils, each less viscous oil seemed to gain oil temperature much more quickly than its thicker cousins. We also saw an accompanying slight drop in oil pressure as we tested the thinner oils, which we expected.

I am mildly surprised to see that the thinner oils hot hot quicker, was there any indiction that the thinner oils ran hotter than the thicker oils? I would have thought the thinner oils while heating up faster would have run "net" a little cooler.
dunno.gif
 
Especially with their ability to flow better. Wonder if they were running a oil cooler with these tests. I too find it hard to believe that the thinner oils heats up faster. But, on the other hand, they should cool quicker as well. I guess you have to find your happy medium. The thinner oil produced a slightly higher HP reading, however, at what cost? Wonder if the mains or other engine compartments suffered a little bit. I'm not with the thin is in crowd yet.
 
I can't help but marvel at someone that can pour oil into that small of an opening without a funnel and not get half of it on the valve cover.
Also some interesting info.
 
We don't know if it takes "more heat" out per se...nor were they talking about "warming the oil" from a cold start.

I believe the comment was referring to quicker rise in oil temps with thinner viscosities (maybe under heavy throttle), but a more consistent oil temperature with thicker ones (more stable).
 
quote:

Originally posted by oilyriser:
Thin oil flows faster, takes more heat out of the engine, and warms up the sump faster. This is a good thing.

I can attest to that. Since switching to 10w30 from 5w20 in my Chrysler, the heater starts blowing warm air MUCH quicker than with the 5w20. This tells me two things: The more viscous 10w30 generates more frictional heat and the thinner 5w20 was cooling the engine more and delaying warm-up.
 
Well, this is a very cold shower for those thin-oil theorists and preachers.

quote:

While you might think that the thinnest oil would have the best shot at making the most power, the 0W20 turned out to be the best in terms of both peak power and best overall power. We're talking about minor power differences of around 8 hp between the 10W60 oil and the 0W20, which is still a great change based on how easy it was to make this pow

There was only an 8HP difference between 0W-20 and 10W-60? That's it? For crying out loud man, I can add some water to my fuel tank and make more power than that!
If this was an honest to God test and run accurately, then this reaffirms my conviction that the best oil viscosity is a 40W.....something like M1 T&SUV 5W-40.

Thinner oils do have their place, but only in extreme cold winters.....especially for a car like mine. I've always felt that with the thinner oils, the slightest increase in coolant temperature could spell disaster. Those who refer to NASCAR using thin oils should remember that they have a 25qt+ dry sump system with high efficiency oil coolers in engines making 700HP+ in a sport that is measured in .0001 seconds.

Very good post Jelly!
 
Where is the engine being "BOGGED DOWN" by the thicker oil? Some report that with their engines. My little 1.6L engine handles the 15w40 with no noticeable effort.

I have another one that is under warranty that the manual says I can use 10W-40 in. I'm going to inquire whether they will have a problem with my using a 5W-40 in it.
 
Oil pressure is not just an indication of resistance to flow. It also indicates resistance to leakage. You can have high flow and low or high oil pressure.
 
quote:

Originally posted by oilyriser:
Thin oil flows faster, takes more heat out of the engine, and warms up the sump faster. This is a good thing.

Now that's a good point. If the oil is to take heat away from the engine a rise in oil temp shows it's doing that job better.
 
There's a discrepancy in the text of the test and the test data. They refer to 0w-20 oil in the text, but the test oil was QS 5w-20.

As anyone who has taken dyno runs on their vehicles knows, there can be a significant difference in HP from one run to another. If the temperature in the room changes just a little bit, that shows up in the numbers. Between 20w-50 and 5w-20, the difference in HP should have been about 4.5% or 25hp on a 560hp engine.
 
quote:

I can't help but marvel at someone that can pour oil into that small of an opening without a funnel and not get half of it on the valve cover.

Nevertheless he seems to be wearing a hazmat suit.
tongue.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by Jay:
Between 20w-50 and 5w-20, the difference in HP should have been about 4.5% or 25hp on a 560hp engine.

You think it's strictly dependent on HP?

I would guess for a particular engine it's more like:

HP-Loss = [Visc + BMEPx(a + b + c)]RPM

where a, b and c would represent factors for the states of lubrication, i.e., hydrodynamic, mixed-film and boundary.

dunno.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom