NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results - Chevelle Tech
Performance Our High Performance area

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 21st, 13, 4:28 PM
540 RAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

Of course I've always known that my carefully generated “motor oil wear protection capability data” was completely accurate, but now my data has been validated and backed-up by a total of FOUR other independent Industry sources. They are as follows:

1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard, whose own test data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing, has concluded that more zinc in motor oil can be damaging, more zinc does NOT provide today's best wear protection, and that using zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.

2. The GM Oil Report titled, "Oil Myths from GM Techlink", concluded that high levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection.

3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, "More than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil", concluded that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer wear protection.

4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company:
There is such a thing as too much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will “tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection. Only so much is utilized. We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP.

Those who are familiar with my test data, know that my test results came up with the exact same results stated by all four of those independent sources. So, this is an example where motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” using oil testing equipment, engine dyno testing, Motor Oil Industry testing, and proper motor oil research using only the facts, from a total of five (including my own) independent sources, all converged to agree and come to the same exact conclusion. Back-up validation proof, doesn't get any better than this.

So, with all those sources in total agreement, that should provide more than enough proof to anyone who questioned my test data, that my data is absolutely correct. And that questioning any one of those sources, questions them all, and questions Physics and Chemistry that determined all those identical results. And no sensible person would try to argue against Physics and Chemistry. Because that is a battle no man can win.


**************************

Now, getting to the purpose of this write-up, a NASCAR engine supplier out of North Carolina, was so impressed with the motor oil “Wear Protection Capability Testing” I perform, that they sent me 3 NASCAR Racing Oils they use, for testing. I considered that quite an endorsement, that these guys valued my testing efforts enough to include me, in some of what they do. They have been seeing some wear issues, and wanted to see if I could shed any light on that by testing their oil. They came to the right place.

The NASCAR oils they sent me were:

0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil (this was out of a 55 gallon drum)

0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil (this was out of a normal quart bottle)

0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil (this was out of a 55 gallon drum)

In addition to performing my normal “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load”, I also sent all 3 oils to the Professional Lab, ALS Tribology in Sparks, Nevada for them to perform component quantity and viscosity testing. The test results from the lab are:


0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil synthetic (lab tested 2013)
Silicon = 7 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)

Boron = 74 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)

Magnesium = 14 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)

Calcium = 1938 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)

Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)

Zinc = 1952 ppm (anti-wear)

Phos = 1671 ppm (anti-wear)

Moly = 1743 ppm (anti-wear)

Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)

Sodium = 1 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)

TBN = 8.2 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)

Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 6.1, and cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.



0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil synthetic (lab tested 2013)
Silicon = 17 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)

Boron = 67 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)

Magnesium = 13 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)

Calcium = 1823 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)

Barium = 10 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)

Zinc = 1693 ppm (anti-wear)

Phos = 1667 ppm (anti-wear)

Moly = 1326 ppm (anti-wear)

Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)

Sodium = 1 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)

TBN = 8.0 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)

Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.3 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.



0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil synthetic (lab tested 2013)
Silicon = 8 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)

Boron = 74 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)

Magnesium = 212 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)

Calcium = 1694 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)

Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)

Zinc = 1676 ppm (anti-wear)

Phos = 1637 ppm (anti-wear)

Moly = 1263 ppm (anti-wear)

Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)

Sodium = 0 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)

TBN = 8.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)

Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 17.6, cSt range for SAE 50 is 16.3 to 21.8, and cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.


*****************************


After I performed my “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load”, you can see below how those 3 NASCAR oils ranked regarding “Wear Protection Capability”, just among other Mobil 1 oils I’ve tested, as well as among other oils I’ve tested that had “Racing Oil” in their name. And they are all ranked in the order of their “Wear Protection Capability” values.

Wear protection reference categories are:

• Over 90,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection

• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection

• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection

• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection

The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.



1. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
phosphorus = 3489 ppm
moly = 1764 ppm
calcium = 2,929 ppm


2. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic, street oil = 105,875 psi
zinc = 801 ppm
phosphorus = 842 ppm
moly = 112 ppm
calcium = 799 ppm


3. 10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
phosphorus = 1518 ppm
moly = 784 ppm
calcium = 1,607 ppm


4. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phosphorus = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
calcium = 2,707 ppm


5. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phosphorus = 1112 ppm
moly = 162 ppm
calcium = 2,664 ppm


6. 10W30 Amsoil Dominator Racing Oil synthetic = 97,118 psi
zinc = 1613 ppm
phos = 1394 ppm
moly = 0 ppm


7. 30 wt Red Line Race Oil synthetic = 96,470 psi
zinc = 2207 ppm
phos = 2052 ppm
moly = 1235 ppm


8. 0W20 Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy, API SN synthetic, street oil = 96,364 psi
zinc = 742 ppm
phos = 677 ppm
moly = 81 ppm

9. 10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil synthetic = 95,543 psi
zinc = 743 ppm
phos = 802 ppm
moly = 1125 ppm


10. 5W30 Maxima RS530 Synthetic Racing Oil = 91,162 psi
zinc = 2162 ppm
phos = 2294 ppm
moly = 181 ppm

11. 20W50 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 87,930 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

12. 5W30 Mobil 1 Extended Performance 15,000 mile, API SN synthetic, street oil = 83,263 psi
zinc = 890 ppm
phos = 819 ppm
moly = 104 ppm

13. 5W30 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 81,800 psi
zinc = 1784 ppm
phos = 1539 ppm
moly = 598 ppm

14. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) synthetic = 74,860 psi
zinc = 1421 ppm
phos = 1338 ppm
moly = 204 ppm

15. 0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil = 73,811 psi
zinc = 1676 ppm
phos = 1637 ppm
moly = 1263 ppm
Onset of thermal breakdown = 270*F

16. 0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil = 71,923 psi
zinc = 1693 ppm
phos = 1667 ppm
moly = 1326 ppm
Onset of thermal breakdown = 280*F

17. 15W50 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic, street oil = 70,235 psi
zinc = 1,133 ppm
phos = 1,168 ppm
moly = 83 ppm

18. 5W30 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL synthetic = 64,175 psi
zinc = 1765 ppm
phos = 2468 ppm
moly = 339 ppm

19. 0W20 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL synthetic = 60,941 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

20. 10W40 Torco TR-1 Racing Oil with MPZ conventional = 59,905 psi
zinc = 1456 ppm
phos = 1150 ppm
moly = 227 ppm

21. 10W40 Summit Racing Premium Racing Oil, API SL = 59,483 psi
This oil is made for Summit by I.L.C.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
NOTE: This oil line was discontinued in Spring 2013.

22. 0W20 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 57,228 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

23. 0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil = 55,080 psi
zinc = 1952 ppm
phos = 1671 ppm
moly = 1743 ppm
Onset of thermal breakdown = 210*F, which was confirmed by repeated tests. This is the WORST/LOWEST onset of thermal breakdown point I’ve ever seen. So, this oil is STARTING TO FAIL even before getting hot enough to quickly boil off normal water condensation. And this is on top of its very poor wear protection capability. Mobil should be embarrassed to even offer this oil for sale.


So, as you can see, these Mobil 1 Racing Oils were poorly ranked at 15th, 16th and 23rd, out of these 23 oils above.

And if you look at my “Wear Protection Ranking List” of all 104 oils I’ve tested so far, you’ll see they rank 65th, 72nd and 99th.

The wind-up is that the 0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil and the 0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil only provide MODEST wear protection, while the 0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil only provides UNDESIRABLE wear protection. So, it is quite clear that these modest/poor performing motor oils are NOT a good choice for NASCAR small block endurance engines that make around 900HP, rev between 9,000 and 10,000 rpm, and do that for hundreds of miles. For applications like this, choosing an oil is just as important as choosing the engine components.

All 3 of these oils might look good on paper for wear protection, since the zinc, phos and moly are all substantial. However, this is yet another example of how looking at a Lab Test Print Out of an oil’s component quantities, shows you absolutely nothing regarding how well it can protect against wear. The ONLY way to determine the FACTS as to how well an oil can protect against wear, is to perform “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load”, which is precisely why I test oil that way.

You don’t just rely on an engine’s build sheet to guess its power/torque characteristics. You dyno test it and track test it, to find out how it really performs in operation. It’s the same thing with testing motor oil. You don’t just rely on an oil’s Lab Test Print Out, you need to test it dynamically at a representative operational temperature to find out what its wear protection capabilities really are.

The wear issues this NASCAR engine supplier was experiencing with these oils, is exactly what you would expect by looking at my “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” test results, which showed that the oils were severely lacking in wear protection capability. Unfortunately, they had no way of knowing this before they started using these oils. But, if I had tested these oils BEFORE they started using them, I could have saved them time, money and grief.

An oil’s ability to protect against wear, is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, NOT just by how much zinc is present. Using zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology. The idea that you need a high level of zinc for a high level of wear protection, is simply an old MYTH that has been BUSTED. Many of today’s anti-wear components (they are often proprietary in nature, and are not specifically tested for, in a basic Lab Test) are not only equal to zinc, but they are BETTER than zinc.

Until I started performing Tribology Research, and setup my motor oil “Wear Protection Capability Ranking List”, there was no good way to know which oils provided good wear protection, and which oils didn’t. Previously, all we could do was guess, or use trial and error to determine which oil was good enough, and which oil was not. And even then, we had no way of knowing how various “good enough” oils compared among themselves. But now, we have documented wear test data available. So, all we have to do is look at the Ranking List, and choose an oil that provides the wear protection we are comfortable with for any given build. This is the 21st Century, and we no longer have to guess or use trial and error to decide on which oil to use.

Also, engines are best served by using oils that have excellent wear protection capability (no matter how much zinc is in them) during Break-In. If folks use these superior oils, and avoid traditional high zinc, low wear protection capability Break-In oils and avoid aftermarket zinc additives which actually REDUCE an oil’s wear protection capability, worries about flat tappet Break-In procedures could become a thing of the past.

The “Wear Protection” test data here DIRECTLY APPLIES to flat tappet lobe/lifter interfaces (no matter how wicked the engine), distributor gear/cam gear interfaces, mechanical fuel pump pushrod tip/cam eccentric interfaces, and all highly loaded engine interfaces.


BOTTOM LINE:
I have no doubt that this Professional NASCAR engine supplier is using good quality engine components, and that they are building their engines well, so all they need to do is select better oils, and their wear issues will go away. Fortunately, there are many, many far better oils available for them to choose from. Even 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic street oil, that is available at any Auto Parts Store, provides a whopping 47% MORE WEAR PROTECTION than the 0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil.

Of course, there can be friction reduction capability differences between street oil and Racing Oil. And keep in mind, that friction reduction and wear protection are two entirely different things, and often do not go hand in hand. If a particular Racing Oil does provide reduced friction, that can increase HP. But, you still have to finish, and you have to run strong to win. So, no matter what, your oil has to provide adequate wear protection to get the job done.

If I were choosing the oils for this NASCAR endurance engine application, as an Engineer, I’d only select oils from the OUTSTANDING wear protection category, which means oils that produce at least 90,000 psi capability in my testing. Any oil in that category would provide sufficient margin of safety to prevent any further wear issues.

***************


If you’d like to see my entire 104 motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List”, along with additional motor oil tech info, here’s a link:

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/

540 RAT
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 21st, 13, 5:43 PM
Tech Team
Marty
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Flushing MI
Posts: 246
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

I have a hard time believing a NASCAR engine supplier has no way of testing the oils it uses.
But, I do appreciate your test results.

Dart 540, AFR 315s, Crane gold rockers, Morel Hyd lifters, Vic Jr, Pro Systems 1000HP, Crane Ignition, Jakes Performance TH400, and one tiny cam.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by truckmonkey; Aug 21st, 13 at 6:23 PM.
truckmonkey is offline  
post #3 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 21st, 13, 6:10 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
Gerry
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: CT
Posts: 913
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

I always thought the track was were all the testing is done!
bradley67 is offline  
 
post #4 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 21st, 13, 6:31 PM
Tech Team
DAVID
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: memphis
Posts: 40
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

Thanks 540 RAT for this info I do appreciate it

69 CORVETTE CONVERTIBLE
496 MJ VORTECPRO 682HP/687TRQ
TREMEC TKO 600
3:36 POSI
RED69VETTE is offline  
post #5 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 21st, 13, 10:05 PM
Senior Tech Team
Matt
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Louisville Kentucky
Posts: 3,026
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

Amazing that a Nascar team has to rely on anonymous oil testing on internet car hobby forums. You would think if their oils were not satisfactory and they were experiencing excessive wear they might ask Jimmy Johnson, Matt Kenseth or some other team that has a successful program what oil they use. This is really surprising. I thought sure all these teams had a great engineering staff.

Street Rod Pix

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


34 Ford Sedan

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


65 Chevelle SS

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Chevelle album
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
oktunes is offline  
post #6 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 21st, 13, 10:22 PM
Senior Tech Team
Chris
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 6,071
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

I have always valued the information you provide. People can take it however they want, but nobody can dispute at the very least you provide information. So thank you. There are a few opinions I get from this test...

1) Nascar Sprint car engines run solid flat tappet camshafts. This would suggest that it doesn't require extreme load ratings in the oil to keep a cam alive. Though I am completely convinced that I would want as high as I can get.

2) Nascar engines are only designed to run about 700 miles. Surely the oil is changed after each practice and again after qualifying. Not to mention tolerance accuracy and part quality is at a premium. So the wear protection requirements from an oil in a Nascar racing engine is not likely to be the same as an old garage built big block with 50000 miles on it.

3) If the engine can last 700 miles then power is everything. I imagine the 0W oil gets used in qualifying for a whopping 10 miles and then is drained because the purpose is to make as much power in the engine as possible. The higher weight oil is then put in for the race.

Maybe send some of these oils down to Wolfplace and see if he would dyno flog a typical BBC or SBC and see how much power these oils make.
-SS454- is offline  
post #7 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 21st, 13, 10:38 PM
Tech Team
ProStreetPat
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: MD
Posts: 152
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

Come on I think RAT is just jerking everybody around now. So RAT you are telling us those professional nascar teams would be better off running 5W-30 standard mobil 1 street car oil? Everybody needs to face a fact here. Real world results on the track far outweigh some simple lab testing. You are basically telling us the nascar teams and mobil that we are all stupid and using the wrong oil and that the engineers at mobil don't know what they are doing. Think about that for a minute.
ProStreet383 is offline  
post #8 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 21st, 13, 11:17 PM
Senior Tech Team
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NORTH EAST
Posts: 3,359
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

The oils that are formulated for the NASCAR teams is not public knowledge, A shop near me did a lot testing for Mobile1 and there were cases of oil that said formulated for Roush Racing.

Website is up and running

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Machine shop tour

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Monthly Specials

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CNC BLOCKS N/E is offline  
post #9 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 21st, 13, 11:34 PM
Senior Tech Team
Derrick
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Howard Lake, MN, USA
Posts: 18,904
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

i'm sure all the different engine builders in NASCAR have their own special formulas, and you aren't going to get them at your local NAPA or from Summit.. Roush/Yates, Hendrick, ECR, and Toyota all probably have their own top secret formulations that they don't let anyone else know about.

"Detroit hasn't felt any real pride since George Bush went to Japan and vomited on their auto executives, I tell you whut"

-Hank Hill
novaderrik is offline  
post #10 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 21st, 13, 11:36 PM
Gold Founding Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: 30.1298228, -97.9771166
Posts: 6,508
Garage
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

It's been a number of years, but I remember a time when Hendrick had a deal with Quaker State and they advertised that they used the same oil you could buy for your car.

Somebody needs to help Toyota out with their oil due to their failures this year.

Isn't Tony Stewart sponsored by Mobil1? Maybe it was someone on his team that provided the sample.

If a government spent $30bn to find better uses for carrots, there would be carrot appreciation societies, carrot conventions, 400 patents on carrot-based wing-nuts, tents, and textiles, and 4000 peer-reviewed references on worrying declines in carrot hue, nutrients, fertility and genetic diversity, not to mention gender inequality in dietary carrot content
Alan F is offline  
post #11 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 21st, 13, 11:40 PM
Team Member
Dal
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Green Valley, AZ
Posts: 1,924
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

Come on..... these teams will drill their own wells and make what they want. Nobody is going to know what they're using. And it's not what anybody thinks it is I'm sure. They use running engines to test stuff....

70 Chevelle - 3300#
NA 517, 1.26-60', 5.85, 9.26 - 143 at Vegas
Straub, Foxwell, HBR
Killerrons, 280 Trickflows (Scottified)
dtrubey is offline  
post #12 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 22nd, 13, 12:15 AM
Lifetime Premium Member
Brian
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Olive Branch, MS
Posts: 1,359
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

Its on the internet. It must be true.

TC Member #96
19 Year Team Chevelle Member
1967 El Camino Build blog -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1967 Turbocharged 408ci LSx Chevelle - 1012 rwhp, 959 rwtq
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2009 Supercharged Silverado -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1967 LSx El Camino build videos on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- ***NEW VIDEO UP 1/27***
"Hey Butthead, does this Pantera guy ever relax?" - Beavis
Brian Hoss is offline  
post #13 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 22nd, 13, 7:07 AM
Senior Tech Team
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NORTH EAST
Posts: 3,359
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

More info
http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36905

Website is up and running

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Machine shop tour

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Monthly Specials

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CNC BLOCKS N/E is offline  
post #14 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 22nd, 13, 12:48 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
jackie
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 4,772
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

Quote:
Originally Posted by -SS454- View Post
I have always valued the information you provide. People can take it however they want, but nobody can dispute at the very least you provide information. So thank you. There are a few opinions I get from this test...

1) Nascar Sprint car engines run solid flat tappet camshafts. This would suggest that it doesn't require extreme load ratings in the oil to keep a cam alive. Though I am completely convinced that I would want as high as I can get.

2) Nascar engines are only designed to run about 700 miles. Surely the oil is changed after each practice and again after qualifying. Not to mention tolerance accuracy and part quality is at a premium. So the wear protection requirements from an oil in a Nascar racing engine is not likely to be the same as an old garage built big block with 50000 miles on it.

3) If the engine can last 700 miles then power is everything. I imagine the 0W oil gets used in qualifying for a whopping 10 miles and then is drained because the purpose is to make as much power in the engine as possible. The higher weight oil is then put in for the race.

Maybe send some of these oils down to Wolfplace and see if he would dyno flog a typical BBC or SBC and see how much power these oils make.
The flat tappet cams used in NASCAR have the same relation to the everyday flat tappet cam as a diamond does to a lump of coal. They are both Carbon, but it ends there.

The hard faced technology used in NASCAR cams is extremely advanced. Wear is not a problem, as it has been noted that you cold darn near run them dry. Many of the top teams use their own proprietary materials, which cost wise, is some of the most expensive cam set-ups used in any application.

I have no idea what so ever if the material offered up by the OP is valid or not. My gut tells me there is a little more to oil performance than the one factor he presents, that PSI load capability.

As for me, I use Mobile-1 10w40. Morel says that is the weight to use with their lifters, and I guess I buy into Mobile's advertising hype.

'67 Chevelle Malibu, Catalina Blue, 540 inch Rat, Air Flow Reasearch 290 CNC Heads heads, Custom Hyd Roller, .675 lift, 234, 244 at .050, Lemons Headers, Holley Multiport Fuel Injection, TCI 6X 6Speed Automatic, 12 bolt Posi Eaton TruTrac, 3:31 Richmond Gears, front and rear power disc brakes, Global West Suspension, etc.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jackie schmidt is offline  
post #15 of 20 (permalink) Old Aug 22nd, 13, 2:26 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: In the Shadow of GIANTS stadium,N.J.
Posts: 7,867
Garage
Re: NASCAR Racing Oil Test Results

I'd like to know since I use 5w30 mobil 1 in a couple of my D/D's ,how it scored 2nd place vs. all the other higher zinc/phos/moly equipped oils on the list.I mean,most of the other higher scored oils have more of these additives in them and yet the Mobil 1 still scores high ? Maybe a flawed result? I'm not saying your testing is flawed just that the results don't add up looking at them ? Does the mobil 1 have some other additive that isn't being accounted for ?
C'mom,what's the skinny ?
PS, I don't use the mobil 1 in either of my ElCamino's.

John
71 El Camino SS
406 SBC M21 3.31 12 bolt
"Quality is always remembered,long after the price is forgotten"
71350SS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Chevelle Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address. Note, you will be sent a confirmation request to this address.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Old Thread Warning
This Thread is more than 2342 days old. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
If you still feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so though.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome