Obvious to many here - but worth repeating

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Every little thing counts in drag racing. An aluminum driveshaft made my Mustang faster, but obviously didn't increase the power output for example.


Only to the rear wheels, where HP counts.

 

[Graham Piccinini]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Vladiator
Originally Posted By: Powerglide
Yep, and anyone that says “my car runs much smoother on xxw-30 than xxw-20” is delusional. Same with “my car feels kinda sluggish on QS xx-40. So I switched to PYB xx-30 and it’s sooo much peppier”. Get your head checked, have a beer and worry about something else.

Some of us score "average" or below average on hearing test, and some of us have a hearing that is waaaay above average. Some of us can feel a bean through seven mattresses, while others won't feel a rock through a blanket they're laying on. Just because your senses are on the low end of the spectrum - doesn't mean that everyone is the same way.

Case on point from personal experience:
- 2006 Pontiac Vibe AWD with a 1.8L 1ZZ-FE Toyota engine and drivetrain. With most 5w30s and some 5w40/0w40 oils it did 0-60mph in 18-18.8 seconds. Painfully slow, I know. (FWD version is much peppier) BUT with Valvoline MST 5w40 or with Castrol 5w40 Professional that 0-60mph figure moved to 20-21 seconds. Measured with GPS on the same straight road, same temps, about 930ft above sea level.


Because this is outrageous, I figured I'd plug those numbers into a calculator to get an idea as to the power difference you are claiming to experience between oils of the same grade. Calculator can be found here: https://www.carspecs.us/calculator/0-60

Specs I'm using are from here: Motortrend 2006 Pontiac Vibe specs and here: Auto123 AWD Vibe specs
HP: 123
Curb weight: 1350 kg/2976lbs

Assuming a 180lb driver and 50lbs of fuel we are at 3,206lbs, which yields a 0-60 of 9.9 seconds, which, based on what I can find via some limited searching should be about right.

So, just to get your base figure of 18 seconds I had to drop the specific output to 55HP. Then, to get that to 21 seconds I had to drop it further to 45HP.

I would advise you take it to a drag strip and get some actual numbers, because these seem completely out to lunch

Your car is ~70HP off from where it should be based on your "timed" 0-60 figures, which casts some serious doubt on the validity of any of that claimed "data".
Hehe love your data skills. Unfortunately theory does not always gets confirmed in practical tests. You should really take a ride in one of those to see how your data stacks up against real world results.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Vladiator
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Vladiator
Originally Posted By: Powerglide
Yep, and anyone that says “my car runs much smoother on xxw-30 than xxw-20” is delusional. Same with “my car feels kinda sluggish on QS xx-40. So I switched to PYB xx-30 and it’s sooo much peppier”. Get your head checked, have a beer and worry about something else.

Some of us score "average" or below average on hearing test, and some of us have a hearing that is waaaay above average. Some of us can feel a bean through seven mattresses, while others won't feel a rock through a blanket they're laying on. Just because your senses are on the low end of the spectrum - doesn't mean that everyone is the same way.

Case on point from personal experience:
- 2006 Pontiac Vibe AWD with a 1.8L 1ZZ-FE Toyota engine and drivetrain. With most 5w30s and some 5w40/0w40 oils it did 0-60mph in 18-18.8 seconds. Painfully slow, I know. (FWD version is much peppier) BUT with Valvoline MST 5w40 or with Castrol 5w40 Professional that 0-60mph figure moved to 20-21 seconds. Measured with GPS on the same straight road, same temps, about 930ft above sea level.


Because this is outrageous, I figured I'd plug those numbers into a calculator to get an idea as to the power difference you are claiming to experience between oils of the same grade. Calculator can be found here: https://www.carspecs.us/calculator/0-60

Specs I'm using are from here: Motortrend 2006 Pontiac Vibe specs and here: Auto123 AWD Vibe specs
HP: 123
Curb weight: 1350 kg/2976lbs

Assuming a 180lb driver and 50lbs of fuel we are at 3,206lbs, which yields a 0-60 of 9.9 seconds, which, based on what I can find via some limited searching should be about right.

So, just to get your base figure of 18 seconds I had to drop the specific output to 55HP. Then, to get that to 21 seconds I had to drop it further to 45HP.

I would advise you take it to a drag strip and get some actual numbers, because these seem completely out to lunch

Your car is ~70HP off from where it should be based on your "timed" 0-60 figures, which casts some serious doubt on the validity of any of that claimed "data".
Hehe love your data skills. Unfortunately theory does not always gets confirmed in practical tests. You should really take a ride in one of those to see how your data stacks up against real world results.


Well, the car is supposed to 0-60 at around 10 seconds, so if your car is literally twice that, either your method is wildly flawed or there is something seriously wrong with your car.

Oh, and my sister has one, FWIW. It isn't a rocket ship, but it isn't a vintage VW beetle either

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Every little thing counts in drag racing. An aluminum driveshaft made my Mustang faster, but obviously didn't increase the power output for example.


Only to the rear wheels, where HP counts.


Rotating mass is important. Anything you need to accelerate, if you can make it lighter, will improve the results. Light wheels, even lighter flywheels are worked in to drop the ET.

I made my car a fair bit quicker just reducing parasitic drag, which of course did increase output to the tires, while not actually improving brake HP. Electric fan, underdrive pulleys, both helped at the track

 

[Graham Piccinini]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

Well, the car is supposed to 0-60 at around 10 seconds, so if your car is literally twice that, either your method is wildly flawed or there is something seriously wrong with your car.

Oh, and my sister has one, FWIW. It isn't a rocket ship, but it isn't a vintage VW beetle either

Did I ever claim that my car was in optimum condition and was at it's max performance levels? No I didn't. As a matter of fact there is a post here with pictures about that engine being sludged up. Now what did I claim then? Nothing. I simply presented the results of my "testing". The engine, in its state & condition, showed two different results with the only variable being the oil in the crankcase. Same gas station, same flat stretch of the road, same temperatures, same 270lb driver. If oil was the only variable and showed these results immediately after the oil change - then there is 100% chance that it is the oil that affected these results. I had some sort of 5w30 synthetic in the crankcase, and changed to Valvoline MST 5w40. Immediately, on the first drive, it felt like I either had flat tires that were dragging me (I even checked, but was 40psi like always), or I was towing a 1500lb trailer with that little 1.8L. All sluggishness and drag was gone after the next OCIs with synthetic 5w30/0w30/0w40.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Vladiator
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

Well, the car is supposed to 0-60 at around 10 seconds, so if your car is literally twice that, either your method is wildly flawed or there is something seriously wrong with your car.

Oh, and my sister has one, FWIW. It isn't a rocket ship, but it isn't a vintage VW beetle either

Did I ever claim that my car was in optimum condition and was at it's max performance levels? No I didn't. As a matter of fact there is a post here with pictures about that engine being sludged up. Now what did I claim then? Nothing. I simply presented the results of my "testing". The engine, in its state & condition, showed two different results with the only variable being the oil in the crankcase. Same gas station, same flat stretch of the road, same temperatures, same 270lb driver. If oil was the only variable and showed these results immediately after the oil change - then there is 100% chance that it is the oil that affected these results. I had some sort of 5w30 synthetic in the crankcase, and changed to Valvoline MST 5w40. Immediately, on the first drive, it felt like I either had flat tires that were dragging me (I even checked, but was 40psi like always), or I was towing a 1500lb trailer with that little 1.8L. All sluggishness and drag was gone after the next OCIs with synthetic 5w30/0w30/0w40.


OK, think about this for a moment. You are presenting that your 123HP engine is producing 55HP. And that changing the oil cost you 10HP; 20%. That's not possible.

There's a rather massive rift between "not optimum" and being down 70HP from stock. You are at less than 50% of stock output according to your 0-60 figures. That's like you losing half your engine.

And due to the sludge in the engine, that's not the only variable. The engine has VCT, which is controlled by oil. It is quite possible that it is experiencing phasing issues due to the build-up which may explain not only the loss of performance, but also the experience you had. When the CPS sensors started to poop the bed on my M5 one of the artifacts of that phenomenon was intermittent power loss, seemingly at random which I originally thought correlated with weather but turned out was just the random nature of the problem, and it eventually got worse. If yours is a hydraulic flow issue, the frequent oil changes with good lubricants may make the issue better, rather than worse, going forward, assuming the sensors are good. This is a far more reasonable explanation for a 10HP deficit on an already unhealthy mill than just a change in oil brand and slight tweak in viscosity.

 

[Shannow]

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=36800

I noticed a serious difference going from delo 400 to 25W70 in winter, not really anything in the 30-40 range.