Dyno Test German castrol 0-30 VS. Mobile 1 5-30
12-19-2006, 04:53 PM
#41
Originally Posted by jRaskell
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 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.
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.
12-19-2006, 04:59 PM
#42
Originally Posted by ArcticZ28
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.
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?
12-19-2006, 05:13 PM
#43
Originally Posted by BigDaddyBry
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?
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?
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.
12-19-2006, 06:02 PM
#44
Originally Posted by ArcticZ28
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.
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.
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....
12-19-2006, 09:18 PM
#45
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rmitchell242
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
12-20-2006, 09:12 AM
#47
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!
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!
12-20-2006, 11:27 AM
#48
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
12-21-2006, 01:01 AM
#49
TECH Addict
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by N4cer
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!
. You guys should work for NASA since you're so superior to us underlings who just don't care about you.
Merry Christmas!
12-21-2006, 01:25 AM
#50
Originally Posted by rmitchell242
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.
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
.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
.
12-21-2006, 03:17 PM
#51
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".
For those of you interested stay tuned. Those that are not, "take it for what it is worth to you".
