mobil 1 5w-30 vs motul 300v 5w-30 16 horse diff

Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,756
Location
CA
No way in [censored] that's possible. I can't believe some people claim such things. I wouldn't believe it if it were a group I 20w-50 vs a syn 0w-20. But to claim those kind of gains within the same viscosity is crazy.
 

brian12

Thread starter
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
449
Location
panhandle of florida
 Originally Posted By: BuickGN
No way in [censored] that's possible. I can't believe some people claim such things. I wouldn't believe it if it were a group I 20w-50 vs a syn 0w-20. But to claim those kind of gains within the same viscosity is crazy.
Haha. Thats what I figured. Those are huge gains just for a change of oil.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,506
Location
Ontario, Canada
That's hilarious. Dyno's are a tuning tool. Take it to the track see if it runs different ET's with each oil in the sump, averaged over 10 runs, done on the same day, with the same track conditions.
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
1,347
Location
Arizona
I wonder why they didnt run the Motul against something of similar quality like Redline? Not that this shows anything. Motul makes great oils but the 300V is really not a street oil whatsoever.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
11,857
Location
PA
Actually, 300V can easily run at least a few thousand miles in a street engine (unlike most "race" oils). I seen it. ;\) But yeah, this "test" shows nothing. I second what OVERK1LL said.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
25,592
Location
Dallas,Tx USA
It`d be really cool if a small ohc engine was built,that`s easily and inexpensively rebuildable,to mimmick the Timken tests. Wonder if that would be possible?
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
19,479
Location
Chicago Area
My dial up won't access that video. But you can get a HP change on two consecutive dyno runs with everything the same. Or you could take the worst run of one oil, and the best of another. My common sense tells me that if huge HP gains were available with an oil change, everybody and their brother would have done it long ago.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,756
Location
CA
 Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
another test that shows Mobil 1 simply does not perform well against others. (when it comes to FI engines) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kETjPZP9Y
Sponsored by one of the oils being tested. The fan's position was moved which will make a difference being that they're turbo'd with intercoolers.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
799
Location
Washington, DC
Redline claims that 2-4% gains can be expected when using their racing oils: Although Red Line racing oils are categorized as “straight grades”, their low-temperature properties make them exceptional multigrades, allowing 2-4% more power than an oil of similar viscosity, while providing much more protection. Each reduction in viscosity grade allows 1-2% more power. Motul is also ester based oil as well and 16hp is about 5% improvement over 330hp achieved with M1..what I am trying to say here it is not how many HP but rather what is the % improvement relative to total engine power.. in honda civic this would only be 5-6 hp improvement... so it is possible...
 
Last edited:

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,506
Location
Ontario, Canada
 Originally Posted By: zoomzoom
Redline claims that 2-4% gains can be expected when using their racing oils: Although Red Line racing oils are categorized as “straight grades”, their low-temperature properties make them exceptional multigrades, allowing 2-4% more power than an oil of similar viscosity, while providing much more protection. Each reduction in viscosity grade allows 1-2% more power. Motul is ester based oil as well and 16hp is about 5% improvement over 330hp achieved with M1..so this makes it believable.
Redline is talking straight-weights. Like comparing SAE 50 to Redline 50wt, which is actually a multi-grade because of its ester base. The Motul test is comparing 5w30. As I said, run the same car on the drag strip on the same day with the same conditions over a spread of 10 runs and see what the results are. If the car doesn't go any faster, it isn't making any more power. Regardless of what the dyno says.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
799
Location
Washington, DC
 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
 Originally Posted By: zoomzoom
Redline claims that 2-4% gains can be expected when using their racing oils: Although Red Line racing oils are categorized as “straight grades”, their low-temperature properties make them exceptional multigrades, allowing 2-4% more power than an oil of similar viscosity, while providing much more protection. Each reduction in viscosity grade allows 1-2% more power. Motul is ester based oil as well and 16hp is about 5% improvement over 330hp achieved with M1..so this makes it believable.
Redline is talking straight-weights. Like comparing SAE 50 to Redline 50wt, which is actually a multi-grade because of its ester base. The Motul test is comparing 5w30. As I said, run the same car on the drag strip on the same day with the same conditions over a spread of 10 runs and see what the results are. If the car doesn't go any faster, it isn't making any more power. Regardless of what the dyno says.
actually dyno is much more controlled/consistent environment for back to back testing than drag strip with changes in temperature and grip, wind, driver factor(no two runs are the same),etc..
 
Last edited:

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,506
Location
Ontario, Canada
 Originally Posted By: zoomzoom
 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
 Originally Posted By: zoomzoom
Redline claims that 2-4% gains can be expected when using their racing oils: Although Red Line racing oils are categorized as “straight grades”, their low-temperature properties make them exceptional multigrades, allowing 2-4% more power than an oil of similar viscosity, while providing much more protection. Each reduction in viscosity grade allows 1-2% more power. Motul is ester based oil as well and 16hp is about 5% improvement over 330hp achieved with M1..so this makes it believable.
Redline is talking straight-weights. Like comparing SAE 50 to Redline 50wt, which is actually a multi-grade because of its ester base. The Motul test is comparing 5w30. As I said, run the same car on the drag strip on the same day with the same conditions over a spread of 10 runs and see what the results are. If the car doesn't go any faster, it isn't making any more power. Regardless of what the dyno says.
actually dyno is much more controlled/consistent environment for back to back testing than drag strip with changes in temperature and grip, wind, driver factor(no two runs are the same),etc..
1. There is always a margin of error in dyno testing. This is why you average a number of runs to get your numbers and not just choosing the "peak" numbers for bragging rights. 2. Dyno runs are affected by temperature and humidity, as well as heat-soak and many of the other factors that affect drag strip runs. This, for many cars, includes traction. 3. I know of numerous bracket-racing cars that will run the same ET consistently. And while I agree that it is very dependant upon the driver, I still feel the track is a much better place to glean if there were any REAL gains. Why? Because the track doesn't lie. If you do 10 runs ---ON A TIRE--- where traction is not an issue, using a competent driver on a day that the conditions remain consistent, and then change the oil and the car goes faster on average on another 10 runs..... Then it made a difference. On the other hand if the above is performed and the car, on average ET's the same, then it didn't REALLY pick up 16HP did it? Regardless of what the dyno is telling you. The dyno calculates HP. It is not a MEASURED value. Torque is the only measured value and is used to calculate the HP numbers. They are also a great tuning tool. In regards to the testing in question, since the device used was a chassis dyno, there are even MORE variables that come into play! Such as clutch slip, loss through the transmission...etc. I'm not saying that dyno's are useless or anything. They are a good tool to gauge potential gains made by performance modifications and for tuning a car with a wide-band. If this test had been performed on an ENGINE dyno, it would hold more merit. Since there are far fewer variables. But since the testing is being done on a car, my opinion (and yes, that is what it is), is that the test would hold more merit being done in terms of measuring ET and MPH improvement (or the lack thereof) as PROOF that the car is actually making more power, rather than just citing chassis dyno numbers and letting people assume that's the case.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,756
Location
CA
 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
 Originally Posted By: zoomzoom
 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
 Originally Posted By: zoomzoom
Redline claims that 2-4% gains can be expected when using their racing oils: Although Red Line racing oils are categorized as “straight grades”, their low-temperature properties make them exceptional multigrades, allowing 2-4% more power than an oil of similar viscosity, while providing much more protection. Each reduction in viscosity grade allows 1-2% more power. Motul is ester based oil as well and 16hp is about 5% improvement over 330hp achieved with M1..so this makes it believable.
Redline is talking straight-weights. Like comparing SAE 50 to Redline 50wt, which is actually a multi-grade because of its ester base. The Motul test is comparing 5w30. As I said, run the same car on the drag strip on the same day with the same conditions over a spread of 10 runs and see what the results are. If the car doesn't go any faster, it isn't making any more power. Regardless of what the dyno says.
actually dyno is much more controlled/consistent environment for back to back testing than drag strip with changes in temperature and grip, wind, driver factor(no two runs are the same),etc..
1. There is always a margin of error in dyno testing. This is why you average a number of runs to get your numbers and not just choosing the "peak" numbers for bragging rights. 2. Dyno runs are affected by temperature and humidity, as well as heat-soak and many of the other factors that affect drag strip runs. This, for many cars, includes traction. 3. I know of numerous bracket-racing cars that will run the same ET consistently. And while I agree that it is very dependant upon the driver, I still feel the track is a much better place to glean if there were any REAL gains. Why? Because the track doesn't lie. If you do 10 runs ---ON A TIRE--- where traction is not an issue, using a competent driver on a day that the conditions remain consistent, and then change the oil and the car goes faster on average on another 10 runs..... Then it made a difference. On the other hand if the above is performed and the car, on average ET's the same, then it didn't REALLY pick up 16HP did it? Regardless of what the dyno is telling you. The dyno calculates HP. It is not a MEASURED value. Torque is the only measured value and is used to calculate the HP numbers. They are also a great tuning tool. In regards to the testing in question, since the device used was a chassis dyno, there are even MORE variables that come into play! Such as clutch slip, loss through the transmission...etc. I'm not saying that dyno's are useless or anything. They are a good tool to gauge potential gains made by performance modifications and for tuning a car with a wide-band. If this test had been performed on an ENGINE dyno, it would hold more merit. Since there are far fewer variables. But since the testing is being done on a car, my opinion (and yes, that is what it is), is that the test would hold more merit being done in terms of measuring ET and MPH improvement (or the lack thereof) as PROOF that the car is actually making more power, rather than just citing chassis dyno numbers and letting people assume that's the case.
Drag strips hurt feelings. The car is either faster or it's not. People don't like hard facts. If those were all turbo cars that were dyno'd, 16hp is nothing. Turbo cars are notorious for being inconsitant and I'm surprised any of the runs were within 16hp of one another even if the oil wasn't changed.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
1,571
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA
Years ago, a snake oil supplier confessed as to how they were able to advertise performance improvements from using their products. It was really pretty simple. Buy a used car. The more neglected the better. Undertake a "base line" performance test (0-60, dyno blast, etc). Install their product (snake oil, super-dooper spark plugs, fuel magnet, fuel pressure regulator, moon sparkle gatherer, etc) and repeat the performance test. What the first performance test really did was to blast out the cobwebs in the engine. The second performance test would always be better, with the snake oil or not. If it wasn't, the test was throw out and another neglected used car tested.
 
Top