View Full Version : Dyno Test German castrol 0-30 VS. Mobile 1 5-30


rmitchell242
12-18-2006, 12:12 AM
I was curious about the performance gains that were possible from simply changing motor oil.

My set up

05 C6
Trickflow 22512:1, Comp Cam 236/242 600/610 114, harland sharp roller rockers, Port matched F.A.S.T. Intake, ported TB ,ASP Underdrive, Callaway Honker, LG Long Tube W/highflow cats, ghl stinger


All runs are on the same DynoJet where I have over 80pulls on my car and is is very consistant

The test consisted of 6 pulls with mobile 1 5-30 (had 200 miles on it) all of which were at 507-508rwp there was no variation greater than the 1 hp

I then switched to the German castrol 0-30 (0 miles) and all 7 pulls were 503-504 rwp no change in tuning or anything else.

To make sure that the Fresh oil was not the cause of the HP loss I then put New mobile 1 5-30 in and Made 2 pulls at 507 rwp.


The dynographs were not worth printing as they are so close that they overlap eachother. I know how these tests go without proper proof(dynocharts) so all I have to say to that is that I am not posting this for debate or for the credibility of my test to be questioned. I did this test for my own knowledge and to help me decide which oil I would run, once I found what I did I decided to share my findings and let you take it as you may. I was hoping for the thinner German to make more power and was dissapointed, but that is why I did this test.

I am sticking with the 5-30 for added protection and a few more hp.

LIL SS
12-18-2006, 12:25 AM
Interesting.. Thanks for the info.

cookba
12-18-2006, 12:30 AM
ya thanks for the info. good to see this finally. i wonder about the difference in protection now.

SuperZ
12-18-2006, 03:27 AM
awesome test.Ive always herd about the castrol.Good to know the Mobile you can find anywhere is getting the job done

bad95killer
12-18-2006, 03:31 AM
awesome test.Ive always herd about the castrol.Good to know the Mobile you can find anywhere is getting the job done

:werd:

peace

CraZee ZO6
12-18-2006, 03:56 AM
Mobil 1 is good stuff and readily available.
I use royal purple.

vettenuts
12-18-2006, 06:59 AM
Actually, the "more protection" is from the GC. It has a viscosity of 11.7 vs. the Mobil-1 viscosity of 10 Cst at 100* C even though they are both 30W oils. This may be the reason for losing a couple of hp.

YellowToy/A
12-18-2006, 08:57 AM
Good data thanks for the test. I am with vettennuts. GC is thicker. So more hp loss. It has been said many times Mobil-1 is thin. U showed this very well. I will stick with GC for more protection. If u want a few more ponys go with Mabil-1.

rmitchell242
12-18-2006, 09:07 AM
Actually, the "more protection" is from the GC. It has a viscosity of 11.7 vs. the Mobil-1 viscosity of 10 Cst at 100* C even though they are both 30W oils. This may be the reason for losing a couple of hp.


cool Thanks for the Info on that

Mr.427
12-18-2006, 09:20 AM
Interesting information. Actually with heads and cam I would suggest you run 15-50 particularly if you do any racing.

MeentSS02
12-18-2006, 10:45 AM
Dyno numbers are all fine and dandy, but I'd be more interested in the oil analysis results to see which oil produces more wear. I'd place a healthy wager that the Mobil 1 5w30 produces more wear on the engine...

SuperZ
12-18-2006, 02:09 PM
Interesting information. Actually with heads and cam I would suggest you run 15-50 particularly if you do any racing.

what why

mike c.
12-18-2006, 02:28 PM
wow,5-30,a little thin for me. i run kendall 20-50 for protection,a few more hp isn't worth it to me.

01pewterbird
12-18-2006, 02:51 PM
I'll stick with GC I rather more protection then a few hp.

TransAminal
12-18-2006, 03:12 PM
wow,5-30,a little thin for me. i run kendall 20-50 for protection,a few more hp isn't worth it to me.

I would never run 20W-50 in a modern, close tolerance motor. That stuff like molasses, I don't even want to think about the kind of wear that you're putting on your motor at startup, especially when its cool/cold.

My dad switched to 15W-40 in his 89 Chevy 350 truck, and the motor blew one day while he was backing a trailer up the driveway. It was fine all the other times he towed, when it was running regular 10W-30. I cant help but think that had something to do with it.

If you look in the owners manual of your car, 20W-50 is even a consideration. I run Mobil 1 5W-30, which is reccommended, and I've been very happy with it. Full synthetic, like Mobil 1 or RP, offers much more protection than conventional oil, even though it may be much thinner. It clings to surfaces better, reduces friction between parts, keeps the inside of the motor cleaner, doesn't break down under high temps like regular oil, and also lasts much longer than conventional.

99zman
12-18-2006, 03:15 PM
thanks for the info

MeentSS02
12-18-2006, 03:18 PM
I would never run 20W-50 in a modern, close tolerance motor. That stuff like molasses, I don't even want to think about the kind of wear that you're putting on your motor at startup, especially when its cool/cold.

My dad switched to 15W-40 in his 89 Chevy 350 truck, and the motor blew one day while he was backing a trailer up the driveway. It was fine all the other times he towed, when it was running regular 10W-30. I cant help but think that had something to do with it.

If you look in the owners manual of your car, 20W-50 is even a consideration. I run Mobil 1 5W-30, which is reccommended, and I've been very happy with it.

While anecdotal evidence like that is nice, I don't think running 15w40 instead of 10w30 would have had much to do with an engine blowing up. If you'll do some looking around, you'll see that Mobil 1 5w30 is a very thin 30wt oil at operating temps. There are oil analysis reports floating around that also show that Mobil 1 5w30 doesn't do well in LS1 engines in terms of wear. These engines tend to show less wear when running a thicker oil (heavier 30wt or 40wt).

The Dragon
12-18-2006, 03:43 PM
. . . There are oil analysis reports floating around that also show that Mobil 1 5w30 doesn't do well in LS1 engines in terms of wear. These engines tend to show less wear when running a thicker oil (heavier 30wt or 40wt).

I've seen a few of those posts and paid them no mind.

I've been running an MS3 or MS4 on my extreme H/C/Complete bolt-ons set-up for ~50,000 miles on a stock bottom-end LS1; I only installed the rod-bolts a few months ago.

I drive "quite spiritedly" everywhere I go at all times :jest: :angel:



EDIT: forgot to mention I've run Mobil 1 5W-30 since the Firehawk had ~500 miles on the odometer :)

ArcticZ28
12-18-2006, 04:06 PM
That doesn't mean it's not wearing more by running Mobil 1. It just means it hasn't worn to the point of failure thus far. GC protects better by a long shot which has been proven time over. No one here is saying M1 is crap, it's just not as good as GC, point blank.

TransAminal
12-18-2006, 04:51 PM
That doesn't mean it's not wearing more by running Mobil 1. It just means it hasn't worn to the point of failure thus far. GC protects better by a long shot which has been proven time over. No one here is saying M1 is crap, it's just not as good as GC, point blank.

Where is the evidence?? If Royal Purple is THAT much better than Mobil 1, then why do manufacturers of high performance engines use M1 as factory fill instead of RP??

I honestly can't see how it can be any better in terms of wear. It may last longer due to more additives and such, but I find it hrd to believe that there would be a measureable difference in wear of a motor that runs RP and one that runs M1.

01pewterbird
12-18-2006, 05:02 PM
^ he wasn't talking about RP, he was talking about the german made castrol, which has proved much better wear numbesr than RP and M1. The analysis doesn't lie. Go on bobistheoilguy.com and do some reading.

dynocar
12-18-2006, 05:37 PM
Interesting info. Which oil manufacturers select is based on many reasons, some such as, who gives them the best purchase contract and now very heavily on federally mandated fuel mileage. As possibly indicated by this test, Mobil I was a better choice then German Castrol for fuel mileage. Towards the end of the list of selection criteria is, which oil wears the best because the worst oil on the shelf at Walmart will take an engine many times past the warranty mile limit. Just because one oil indicated more or less HP is no indication of which one is better for wear on an engine.

pdd
12-18-2006, 05:42 PM
thanks for the info :judge:

ls1muscle
12-18-2006, 06:11 PM
This is pretty much common sense.

Hey, let's go for maximum horsepower. Let's take out half a quart of oil for less resistance and run thin mobil 1 oil for faster oil movement threw the motor. Should pick up a solid 5 rwhp :jest:

No thanks, I will run more oil in my motor than it calls for and use the thicker GC 30wt oil for WOT protection :) And before some dumbass says it's bad to put more oil into your motor, the LS1 design / oil pan can take alot more than 5.5 qts of oil and not have any problems.

BigDaddyBry
12-18-2006, 06:37 PM
You're talking less than 1%, any thought on that being the variation within the dyno?

"On my third run I used anal-eaze and hit 515rwhp..."

Demonicbird00
12-18-2006, 06:44 PM
id like to see what the difference would be between the mobil 1 and Red Line, thats what my dad an i use in our cars and karts.

nice research
brandon

Ksett
12-18-2006, 06:54 PM
wow,5-30,a little thin for me. i run kendall 20-50 for protection,a few more hp isn't worth it to me.

I agree, I run Amsoil 20-50 racing oil in my forged motor.

rmitchell242
12-18-2006, 07:55 PM
You're talking less than 1%, any thought on that being the variation within the dyno?

"On my third run I used anal-eaze and hit 515rwhp..."




This is the ignorant comment that I was looking for. Thanks for your input I will try anal ease next time if it is good for 515 as you seem to have tested it out.

READ HOW THE TEST WENT AND THINK TO YOURSELF IF IT IS JUST A VARIATION IN THE DYNO,

THIS IS WHAT YOU COULD TRY ACTUALLY READ, THINK, THEN ASK YOURSELF THE QUESTION READ AGAIN THEN YOU MIGHT GET IT RIGHT.



maybe next time I will try a few other oils and see what happens :)

MeentSS02
12-18-2006, 07:55 PM
Where is the evidence?? If Royal Purple is THAT much better than Mobil 1, then why do manufacturers of high performance engines use M1 as factory fill instead of RP??

I honestly can't see how it can be any better in terms of wear. It may last longer due to more additives and such, but I find it hrd to believe that there would be a measureable difference in wear of a motor that runs RP and one that runs M1.

If you did oil analysis results and/or studied the results of others who had done oil analysis on their LSx based motors, you'd see how some oils are better than others as far as wear goes. It isn't that Mobil 1 is a bad oil...it is that Mobil 1 5w30 is a thin 30wt oil at operating temps. That is what is in dispute here. That is what is most likely attributable to the higher wear seen in these engines when running this oil. People have had better wear results with Mobil 1 0w40 since it is a thicker oil...these engines just like a little thicker oil. Nothing more, nothing less.

And as stated, just because a manufacturer uses it as a factory fill doesn't mean that it is the best stuff out there. Manufacturers do what is best to meet the criteria so that the engine lasts until the warranty is up, and what is cheapest to them.

MeentSS02
12-18-2006, 08:00 PM
This is the ignorant comment that I was looking for. Thanks for your input I will try anal ease next time if it is good for 515 as you seem to have tested it out.

READ HOW THE TEST WENT AND THINK TO YOURSELF IF IT IS JUST A VARIATION IN THE DYNO,

THIS IS WHAT YOU COULD TRY ACTUALLY READ, THINK, THEN ASK YOURSELF THE QUESTION READ AGAIN THEN YOU MIGHT GET IT RIGHT.

I don't think his comment is any more ignorant than thinking that changing your oil can net you more power on the dyno. It kinda sucks that Royal Purple has planted the seed with their marketing gimmick because it leads to stuff like this that really leads some consumers astray. I'm sure that running a thinner oil will help the engine free up some more power, but at what cost? More wear...it is no secret that GC 0w30 is a thicker oil than Mobil 1 5w30. I'm not surprised that the Mobil 1 produced the better numbers because of it.

rmitchell242
12-18-2006, 08:09 PM
I do think that the idea of oil giving you 10+ HP is not true and that is why I checked it myself so that I would have no doubt what the difference is.

My next test will be the electric water pump I see several different claims of what the gains are there and I am going to test it myself the same day on the same dyno and I am sure if it picks up 7 hp it will still only be a %1.3 gain on a car that makes the same hp EVERY TIME on the same dyno and will be invalid. That is why I was bothered by his comments. I am sure that with some cars/ dynos there is a small error and if my car would run inconsistant dyno pulls I would not have even bothered with this thread because it would be to small of a change to see. But the fact that it will repeat within 1 hp told me that I can run a test that is down to 3 ,4 or 5 hp

I appologize if i was harsh

MeentSS02
12-18-2006, 08:14 PM
I do think that the idea of oil giving you 10+ HP is not true and that is why I checked it myself so that I would have no doubt what the difference is.

My next test will be the electric water pump I see several different claims of what the gains are there and I am going to test it myself the same day on the same dyno and I am sure if it picks up 7 hp it will still only be a %1.3 gain on a car that makes the same hp EVERY TIME on the same dyno and will be invalid. That is why I was bothered by his comments. I am sure that with some cars/ dynos there is a small error and if my car would run inconsistant dyno pulls I would not have even bothered with this thread because it would be to small of a change to see. But the fact that it will repeat within 1 hp told me that I can run a test that is down to 3 ,4 or 5 hp

I appologize if i was harsh

I think he was more or less responding to what I've been trying to say here, which is that the Mobil 1 5w30 produces a little more wear on the engines as proven by independent oil analysis results, so you really aren't getting something for nothing here. But what does that extra wear mean? No one can give a difinitive answer on that...with the Mobil 1 changed regularly, your engine might last 200k miles, with the GC, it could last a little more (like 200,001 miles).

Don't worry about being harsh...I have my own personal fan club of some people on here that spout off some really weird stuff from time to time, and I can get snippy with them too :jest: This is the internet after all...now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to pleasuring my supermodel girlfriend :lol:

Chris Gage
12-18-2006, 09:19 PM
NOt that it really matters but I have always used RP 5-30 (tried GC for 6k miles and didn't like it all that much myself) and have raced my 98 Z a million times.... it now has just under 179k miles and still running strong..... Also, while running GC I dyno'd 334/348 with 2500 miles on the oil (cat-back lid only) after fresh RP and the same set up it dyno'd 338/351.... Typical gains from having fresh oil in the car... I think it is kinda dumb to use oil as a way to pick up cheap hp's... that is just my personal opinion though.

pekkaz
12-19-2006, 12:21 AM
Oil has a major effect on how lifters work. Changes in power may result from this as well other than just friction

SSDude
12-19-2006, 01:27 AM
Dyno numbers are all fine and dandy, but I'd be more interested in the oil analysis results to see which oil produces more wear. I'd place a healthy wager that the Mobil 1 5w30 produces more wear on the engine...


Good observation. Go to www.bobistheoilguy.com and check out the UOA section. What you will find is that GC consistently shows lower wear than Mobil 1. In fact, Mobil 1 consistently shows high levels of lead!! The proof of wear can be seen by looking at a UOA and not dyno results.

BigDaddyBry
12-19-2006, 09:03 AM
This is the ignorant comment that I was looking for. Thanks for your input I will try anal ease next time if it is good for 515 as you seem to have tested it out.

READ HOW THE TEST WENT AND THINK TO YOURSELF IF IT IS JUST A VARIATION IN THE DYNO,

THIS IS WHAT YOU COULD TRY ACTUALLY READ, THINK, THEN ASK YOURSELF THE QUESTION READ AGAIN THEN YOU MIGHT GET IT RIGHT.



maybe next time I will try a few other oils and see what happens :)
I don't think my response was ignorant, but it proves the point: in this very unscientific comparison with absolutely no supporting evidence, I could have used a thinner, slicker agent and achieved better dyno results. But, at what cost?

And please educate me, oh scholarly one, as to what intelligence I was to gain from reading your post? That now ricers can produce a new sticker to put on their car that assumes they gained 2hp in their 200hp ride by changing motor oil? C'mon man, what kind of feedback did you expect to receive posting this on LS1tech?

Just because you include the disclaimers of: it wasn't worth getting the graphs, I didn't post this for the credibility of my results to be questioned, etc. yet you use your "evidence" to support your change and you even go so far as to defend your "evidence"! Defending your info makes it appear that you are stating it as fact and you are doing so without any supporting evidence. We all know, for one, that a little blip in the graph not smoothed can lead to a higher dyno number. In addition, I'd like to know: did you remove your vehicle to change the oil or did you leave it on the dyno; and, what was the time between the runs with different oil?

You don't need to post overlays, post individual graphs, and shut me up.

Louie83
12-19-2006, 01:59 PM
This is pretty much common sense.

Hey, let's go for maximum horsepower. Let's take out half a quart of oil for less resistance and run thin mobil 1 oil for faster oil movement threw the motor. Should pick up a solid 5 rwhp :jest:

No thanks, I will run more oil in my motor than it calls for and use the thicker GC 30wt oil for WOT protection :) And before some dumbass says it's bad to put more oil into your motor, the LS1 design / oil pan can take alot more than 5.5 qts of oil and not have any problems.

Thank you, I was waiting for someone to say the obvious.

dynocar
12-19-2006, 02:41 PM
Most of us, I hope, take it for what it is worth, interesting reading and drawing your own conclusions, but then again, I would trust it further then some very scientific results or comparisons from any oil company or so called "independent lab".

jRaskell
12-19-2006, 04:37 PM
I don't think my response was ignorant, but it proves the point: in this very unscientific comparison with absolutely no supporting evidence, I could have used a thinner, slicker agent and achieved better dyno results. But, at what cost?

And please educate me, oh scholarly one, as to what intelligence I was to gain from reading your post? That now ricers can produce a new sticker to put on their car that assumes they gained 2hp in their 200hp ride by changing motor oil? C'mon man, what kind of feedback did you expect to receive posting this on LS1tech?

Just because you include the disclaimers of: it wasn't worth getting the graphs, I didn't post this for the credibility of my results to be questioned, etc. yet you use your "evidence" to support your change and you even go so far as to defend your "evidence"! Defending your info makes it appear that you are stating it as fact and you are doing so without any supporting evidence. We all know, for one, that a little blip in the graph not smoothed can lead to a higher dyno number. In addition, I'd like to know: did you remove your vehicle to change the oil or did you leave it on the dyno; and, what was the time between the runs with different oil?

You don't need to post overlays, post individual graphs, and shut me up.

He posted his disclaimers because he knew, just as I know, and many others know, that posting ANY sort of information these days will invariably drag in the naysayers with their sarcasm.

He did nothing more than post information. 6 runs within 1hp of each other, followed by two oil changes and additional runs with consistant results. He posted the results and told us to 'take it as you may' (something anybody should do regardless HOW the information was presented). Your 'analeaze' comment was completely uncalled for, completely unproductive, and completely useless to this thread. THAT is the only fact here.

If his credibility is in question, posting graphs wouldn't change a thing.

ArcticZ28
12-19-2006, 04:41 PM
He posted his disclaimers because he knew, just as I know, and many others know, that posting ANY sort of information these days will invariably drag in the naysayers with their sarcasm.

It has become a staple of LS1Tech as of late to completely tear apart anyone's thread that posts any sort of personally researched and tested data.

BigDaddyBry
12-19-2006, 04:53 PM
He posted his disclaimers because he knew, just as I know, and many others know, that posting ANY sort of information these days will invariably drag in the naysayers with their sarcasm.

He did nothing more than post information. 6 runs within 1hp of each other, followed by two oil changes and additional runs with consistant results. He posted the results and told us to 'take it as you may' (something anybody should do regardless HOW the information was presented). Your 'analeaze' comment was completely uncalled for, completely unproductive, and completely useless to this thread. THAT is the only fact here.

If his credibility is in question, posting graphs wouldn't change a thing.
He posted information and defended it as fact without any supporting documentation. Show me where someone posted an oil analysis (with results) and was was challenged and discredited. Exactly, YOU CAN'T!

I'm not challenging his credibility, I'm challenging his methods and deductions based on the lack of supporting info.

FYI, if you want to post thoughts and beliefs without barely any evidence, no one will challenge you. Post "facts" with no supporting evidence, and you'll get challenged.

BigDaddyBry
12-19-2006, 04:59 PM
It has become a staple of LS1Tech as of late to completely tear apart anyone's thread that posts any sort of personally researched and tested data.
Is this true if the data is not supported? "Researched and tested" should come with evidence, FWIW.

For example:
If I told you I felt a 20rwhp improvement after I installed a K&N filter, what would your response be?

What if I told you it was a 3rwhp improvement (300rwhp vs. 303rwhp) proven on a dyno?

ArcticZ28
12-19-2006, 05:13 PM
Is this true if the data is not supported? "Researched and tested" should come with evidence, FWIW.

For example:
If I told you I felt a 20rwhp improvement after I installed a K&N filter, what would your response be?

What if I told you it was a 3rwhp improvement (300rwhp vs. 303rwhp) proven on a dyno?

To address your question toward me:
Lack of posted evidence does not mean something was not researched and tested. By your line of thinking, the majority of military research and testing would be invalid because they chose not to post it to the world. Regardless, this case even differs from that because the guy doesn't need to post the graphs to prove anything. He didn't create this thread to disprove science. He created it to post some simple results he had. If you think it's invalid b/c he didn't post evidence that meets your standards, fine. To each their own. At the risk of becoming completely banal and trite, I think it would still benefit this thread to say, yet again, that all information must be taken in stride.

And on a side note:
Stop posting just to bicker with what anyone says. You're just further proving my point I made in my previous post. It's pretty sad these threads usually come to this but hopefully it gets locked soon. The guy got all of the information across that he wanted.

BigDaddyBry
12-19-2006, 06:02 PM
To address your question toward me:
Lack of posted evidence does not mean something was not researched and tested. By your line of thinking, the majority of military research and testing would be invalid because they chose not to post it to the world. Regardless, this case even differs from that because the guy doesn't need to post the graphs to prove anything. He didn't create this thread to disprove science. He created it to post some simple results he had. If you think it's invalid b/c he didn't post evidence that meets your standards, fine. To each their own. At the risk of becoming completely banal and trite, I think it would still benefit this thread to say, yet again, that all information must be taken in stride.

And on a side note:
Stop posting just to bicker with what anyone says. You're just further proving my point I made in my previous post. It's pretty sad these threads usually come to this but hopefully it gets locked soon. The guy got all of the information across that he wanted.
I think you are missing my point....

If you want to post simple results, then you post your info and don't run with it like it's fact.

And on your side note, it's not about bickering. Its about keeping people who don't know better from running with unproven info and trying it out like its legit. Tell me you haven't seen that happen before on this forum....

rmitchell242
12-19-2006, 09:18 PM
I know how these tests go without proper proof(dynocharts) so all I have to say to that is that I am not posting this for debate or for the credibility of my test to be questioned. I did this test for my own knowledge and to help me decide which oil I would run, once I found what I did I decided to share my findings and let you take it as you may..


Does this look to you like I am running with it as if it were fact?

And on your side note this is a hell of a lot better than claims of 10rwp gains from changing oil. I did a test posted my results nowhere did I say that it was fact or that anybody else should run anykind of oil.



I look forward to reading your response and I am sure it will stump me.

The Scholarly One

JRracing
12-20-2006, 07:20 AM
Interesting.. Thanks for the info.


+1 for me. :hail:

N4cer
12-20-2006, 09:12 AM
TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER:

Good job! I think that the consistency in the runs shows that it is at least something to evaluate. I agree, it IS common sense, since we always hear that GC is heavier oil, but this backs that up. So your test was just as valid as someone running better numbers at the track with a 6speed after a modification.

I don't know what the deal is that some of the guys on tech want to tear people down lately. People don't HAVE to post evidence. He posted experience, and you can gain from it or not. No big deal. I love this about internet know-it-alls lately. If nobody hands them documented hard proof then it didn't happen. What about the guys like me who would rather post my experience and watch what happens to those who don't learn from it? I'd rather shake my nuts at some of these guys than give them a graph, just because of their attitude. Way too serious for the internet. You guys should work for NASA since you're so superior to us underlings who just don't care about you.

Merry Christmas!

dynocar
12-20-2006, 11:27 AM
Guys like the legend, now past away, Smokey Unick would not have got far on these forums because even if he observed the same thing over and over and just wanted to share it with us, would have got insulted.

The Dragon
12-21-2006, 01:01 AM
TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER:
. You guys should work for NASA since you're so superior to us underlings who just don't care about you.

Merry Christmas!

This chit had my Wife and I crackin' up :rotflmao:

SSmokin 01
12-21-2006, 01:25 AM
I was curious about the performance gains that were possible from simply changing motor oil.

My set up

05 C6
Trickflow 22512:1, Comp Cam 236/242 600/610 114, harland sharp roller rockers, Port matched F.A.S.T. Intake, ported TB ,ASP Underdrive, Callaway Honker, LG Long Tube W/highflow cats, ghl stinger


All runs are on the same DynoJet where I have over 80pulls on my car and is is very consistant

The test consisted of 6 pulls with mobile 1 5-30 (had 200 miles on it) all of which were at 507-508rwp there was no variation greater than the 1 hp

I then switched to the German castrol 0-30 (0 miles) and all 7 pulls were 503-504 rwp no change in tuning or anything else.

To make sure that the Fresh oil was not the cause of the HP loss I then put New mobile 1 5-30 in and Made 2 pulls at 507 rwp.


The dynographs were not worth printing as they are so close that they overlap eachother. I know how these tests go without proper proof(dynocharts) so all I have to say to that is that I am not posting this for debate or for the credibility of my test to be questioned. I did this test for my own knowledge and to help me decide which oil I would run, once I found what I did I decided to share my findings and let you take it as you may. I was hoping for the thinner German to make more power and was dissapointed, but that is why I did this test.

I am sticking with the 5-30 for added protection and a few more hp.


Thanks for sharing :cheers: .

Don't sweat the BS. If a someone's post is not productive and they can't be reasoned with, I don't bother replying back.
Let them talk to themselves. That way they're always right and everyone's happy :jest: .

GTOtoGO
12-21-2006, 03:17 PM
rmitchell242 has unlimited access to a Dynojet 248 dyno and the curiosity, experience and the time to provide comparison testing which can benefit us LSx guys. Why would anyone want to degrade that. I happen to be friends with him and was at the shop when these tests took place. This test although maybe not scientific, is a hell of alot more than speculation. Our intensions are to do many more comparisons including cams, ported intakes, water pumps and other supporting bolt ons.

For those of you interested stay tuned. Those that are not, "take it for what it is worth to you".