|
10w40 vs 20w50 for track use
I have done a few track days and I'm hooked :D. My car has basic engine mods (exhaust, intake, tune) and I currently use Amsoil Z-Rod 10w30. I live in SoCal and the temps last weekend were 106*F and my oil temp was around 230-250*F. From reading around, seems most recommend either 10w40 or 20w50. Which would be better for my application? I can't remember the thread, but there was a concern about running a 50 weight in a stock tolerance motor. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
PS my car has 104k miles if that helps. |
Tracked my car for 4 years at Fontana & always ran the 10w/30. Stock motor w/all bolt-ons & E85 tune
|
I always looked for a good 10w/30 with high ZDDP. With the built motor, now I just run rotella T6 (probably not a good winter oil, but car isn't driven in the winter).
|
You'll be fine with 10w30. With the abuse of a tack day, I would put an actual racing oil in the motor. Something like amsoil dominator 10w30.
|
A friend just sent me a link to some recent oil testing:
https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/ It's super long but eventually gets to some interesting results. |
Originally Posted by griceiv
(Post 11625037)
A friend just sent me a link to some recent oil testing:
https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/ It's super long but eventually gets to some interesting results. 153. 5W40 SHELL ROTELLA T6 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, SM, SL = 67,804 psi zinc = TBD phos = TBD moly = TBD I'm glad to see amsoil scored well in his tests. :) |
Nice article, stupid long but didn't take long to find some good info in there. Maybe Ill switch back over to Mobile 1 5w30 since its easy to get and #5 on the list.
I did find the max RPM section interesting. Build 2.3/2.4 at 90 f/s would be 8230rpms. I'm babying it at 7800! 94mm crank would be 8750. |
Seems I made a good choice using Z-Rod 10w30. Scored in the top 5 in almost every test. Thanks for the help.
|
One of us is gonna have to cut/paste the info.
Om my cell phone, I scrolled down to the good stuff then hit "back" by accident. Gave up. LOL |
Originally Posted by Dallas J
(Post 11625066)
Nice article, stupid long but didn't take long to find some good info in there. Maybe Ill switch back over to Mobile 1 5w30 since its easy to get and #5 on the list.
I did find the max RPM section interesting. Build 2.3/2.4 at 90 f/s would be 8230rpms. I'm babying it at 7800! 94mm crank would be 8750. TL;DR for the OP. neither 10w40 nor 20w50 seem like the correct oil to run based on that guy's advice. mobil1 5w30 (new formulation with dexos1 approval) is one of the highest ranked oils in his testing. |
|
Originally Posted by griceiv
(Post 11625037)
A friend just sent me a link to some recent oil testing:
https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/ It's super long but eventually gets to some interesting results. I've done track days with ZROD and immediately sent out the oil for UOA. https://r56hs.com/2015/10/25/evo-uoa-3/ looked perfectly fine. I am switching to redline 5w30 though moving forward. i'll know for sure by july, but IMO better additive package, slightly higher (thicker) viscosity at 100cst, lower viscosity at 40cst, and better HTHS number (crucial for our cars) :: to be specifically on topic - stock block, stock head, I think 30wt oil is good. |
If you read my link above Redline actually came near last place. But I've been running amsoil dom 15w50 for years on the stock block.
|
Originally Posted by Balrok
(Post 11625365)
If you read my link above Redline actually came near last place. But I've been running amsoil dom 15w50 for years on the stock block.
|
What about our turbos? The ONLY reason I'm running 50w VR1 is because FP recommended it for my application.
|
Originally Posted by griceiv
(Post 11625037)
A friend just sent me a link to some recent oil testing:
https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/ It's super long but eventually gets to some interesting results. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums...pics/3120982/1 Its good data but I wouldn't consider it the "holy grail", just another set of data. Although the high volume pump and lower weight oil really has me thinking about changing from 20W-50 VR-1, even on a built engine. |
So if I'm reading this right, viscosity does not equal film strength. Higher viscosity doesn't support bearing better than lower because it's thicker. The old adage of needing 15-50 to support stub shafts on cars without balance shafts isn't based on engineering but handed down "hey, this works".
Am I getting this right? Is viscosity determined by oil passage size then? This is all breaking down what I previously assumed to be correct. |
^ correct to an extent. look at HTHS numbers guys, good indication of strength, especially at high rpm/stress
|
The old theory (with some science to back it up) is that oil looses viscosity as it heats/wears/gets contaminated. Naturally right. So racing wears it the most since your sitting at such high heat/rpm levels for so long. Thus we always ran a higher weight oil because 50 when you start can be 30 when your done. And 30 when you start can be 20 or lower when your done.
These days however syn technology has upgraded said oils to resist this a LOT more, but I still run 50 weight because i've proven it works for 3 years of racing on 1 engine before I rebuilt it just cause the other parts wore before the metal did. Also ol Nathan went from 30 weight to 50 weight on amsoil dom because the lab results said to. |
Originally Posted by kyoo
(Post 11625431)
^ correct to an extent. look at HTHS numbers guys, good indication of strength, especially at high rpm/stress
As a sanity check I pulled some numbers from the report to see the correlation between viscosity and "Wear Protection Capability" for oils that had multiple viscosity listed: Castrol GTX, API SN conventional 20W50 = 96514 5w30 = 95392 5w20 =95543 High mileage 5w30 = 91404 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM 20W50 = 87930 5w30 = 81800 0w20 = 57228 Royal Purple API SN synthetic 20W50 = 83487 5w30 = 84009 5w20 = 90434 Kendall GT-1 High Performance with liquid titanium, API SN conventional 20W50 = 83365 0w20 = 71385 Other than Royal Purple, it seems that oil viscosity does correlate with wear protection within a given brand. Just a quick observation, I am no expert. |
Originally Posted by Balrok
(Post 11625435)
The old theory (with some science to back it up) is that oil looses viscosity as it heats/wears/gets contaminated. Naturally right. So racing wears it the most since your sitting at such high heat/rpm levels for so long. Thus we always ran a higher weight oil because 50 when you start can be 30 when your done. And 30 when you start can be 20 or lower when your done.
These days however syn technology has upgraded said oils to resist this a LOT more, but I still run 50 weight because i've proven it works for 3 years of racing on 1 engine before I rebuilt it just cause the other parts wore before the metal did. Also ol Nathan went from 30 weight to 50 weight on amsoil dom because the lab results said to. |
Here are some paragraphs to discuss viscosity.
Plain bearings, such as rod and main bearings, are lubricated by oil flow, not by oil pressure. Oil pressure is NOT what keeps these parts separated. Oil pressure serves only to supply the oil to the clearance between the bearings and the crankshaft journals. Those parts are kept apart by the incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge that is formed as the liquid oil is pulled in between the spinning parts. As long as sufficient oil is supplied by the necessary oil pressure mentioned above, no wear can occur. And the higher flow rate of thinner oil, supplies more oil volume to the main and rod bearings, which also helps ensure that the critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge is maintained. Thinner oil will of course flow out from the bearing clearance quicker than thicker oil will. But, by making sure there is sufficient oil pressure as mentioned above, the oil supply will always stay ahead of the oil flowing out, which will maintain that critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge. • Oil flow is what carries heat away from internal engine components. Those engine components are DIRECTLY oil cooled, but only INdirectly water cooled. And better flowing thinner oil will keep critical engine components cooler because it carries heat away faster than slower flowing thicker oil can. This is especially important with plain main and rod bearings, since the flow of oil through the bearings is what cools them. If you run thicker oil than needed, you will drive up engine component temps. • Thicker oils DO NOT automatically provide better wear protection than thinner oils, as some people mistakenly believe. Extensive “dynamic wear testing under load” of over 170 motor oils, has shown that the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the primary emphasis on the additive package, which is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, is what determines an oil’s wear protection capability, NOT its viscosity. In fact, the test data has shown that 5W20 oils can provide INCREDIBLE wear protection with over 120,000 psi load carrying capability/film strength/shear resistance, while 15W50 oils can sometimes only provide UNDESIRABLE wear protection with less than 60,000 psi. So, DO NOT use thicker oil under the assumption that it can provide better wear protection for our engines, because that is simply NOT TRUE. Its all a lot of reading but does seem to bring up some great topic points weather they are to be believed or not. I don't see any info on viscosity break down though. From some of his points, I could see a desire to run a thicker oil if oil supply issues are present. Thicker oil gives more time before a bearing pushes oil out, but no clue how much actual buffer that is. |
Per what PA Dutch posted, it seems that the thicker oils within a manufacturers line provide better protection.
Yes, Brand X 0w20 may out perform Brand Y 20w50. But what you have to do is compare Brand X's 0w20 to Brand X's 20w50 (hoping they have similar additive packs). |
what dallas j posted makes a lot of sense and is exactly correct. all about film strength.
I think the question the 20w50 guys are posing is, why not? and to that end, idk. engine builders often times only care about the sanctity of the engine itself, and can guarantee "protection" with thick ass oil. pumps on the other hand, will certainly have a much harder time. |
The link with the big study also does share some info about thinner oils flowing more and pulling more heat away and yadda yadda... Would assume that would be better for turbos too.
|
Originally Posted by Dallas J
(Post 11625485)
The link with the big study also does share some info about thinner oils flowing more and pulling more heat away and yadda yadda... Would assume that would be better for turbos too.
|
Been tryna tell people thicker is not always better for years. It's film stregth that makes the difference.
|
this is an extremely good thread posted on BITOG regarding this issue:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums...pics/2206204/1 the thing that stands out to me is that the oiling system is the issue more than the oil itself. thicker oil will create more pressure, which is good for the poor oiling system. I'm countering those myself with a kiggly HLA and a baffled oil pan and possibly a crank scraper as well. one post also notes that Red Line's 5w30 flows more like a 40wt oil, something to consider |
I know I've mentioned this before, but we've had great luck with Accusump and a stock pan.
|
Originally Posted by EVOizmm
(Post 11625801)
I know I've mentioned this before, but we've had great luck with Accusump and a stock pan.
|
Originally Posted by kyoo
(Post 11625791)
this is an extremely good thread posted on BITOG regarding this issue:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums...pics/2206204/1 the thing that stands out to me is that the oiling system is the issue more than the oil itself. thicker oil will create more pressure, which is good for the poor oiling system. I'm countering those myself with a kiggly HLA and a baffled oil pan and possibly a crank scraper as well. one post also notes that Red Line's 5w30 flows more like a 40wt oil, something to consider Kiggly Scraper Baffled/trap door oil pan 50w oil 😀 |
Originally Posted by kaj
(Post 11625855)
Mine may be overkill LOL
Kiggly Scraper Baffled/trap door oil pan 50w oil 😀 |
For sure. I'm pretty sure you can link most 4G63 failures to oiling issues if they didn't break a rod or piston.
I had to pull the oil filter housing twice to port it enough even running the soft spring to get my oil pressures under control after balance shaft delete so I was just pumping extra fluid. Plus I ported oil returns trying to help that flow back to pan. Wish there was an Evo easy button for oil supply issues.. |
Yep. Tis called Dry $ump.
|
Originally Posted by kaj
(Post 11625855)
Mine may be overkill LOL
Kiggly Scraper Baffled/trap door oil pan 50w oil �� |
Originally Posted by EVOizmm
(Post 11626345)
have you done any logging?
|
ive been tracking on amsoil 10w40 high zinc for almost 5 years, with only oiling modification being a kiggly. I consistently do oil analysis after every 2-3 track weekends (i change oil before each weekend) and i have had zero issues show up. One sample last summer had a tiny little bump in lead levels, although it was still like half of the normal average listed, and it subsided to normal at the next sample. I just moved up to a set of rc-1's so i will see if anything changes with the increased grip, but needless to say ive been pretty happy with my oil (4 years, 25 track days, 75k on stock motor/turbo).
i did have some small issues with oil light flicker when coming off track on warmer days, and the car would almost stall. my initial solution was to just keep my foot in it a little, but ive since just bumped the idle in the map to about 1100 i believe, and it has never happened since. |
thanks for the input. what is their 10w40 high zinc?
|
Originally Posted by kyoo
(Post 11627550)
thanks for the input. what is their 10w40 high zinc?
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-produc...?code=AMOQT-EA |
Originally Posted by letsgetthisdone
(Post 11627557)
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.evo...d2c07ed6d8.jpg |
yup that one.
i like it, because over all oil samples ive sent in my zinc and phos have never been below 1100 compared to the rotella that was being used in the car when i bought it which struggled to hit 700. had slight fuel dilution last sample due to a only getting about e75 instead of e82 i normally get, and still all numbers were nice and high. |
I'm running VR1 20W50 with E85 in my built engine. Lately I've been putting mostly highway miles on the car. In fact my last oil change had next to no WOT pulls on it. I'm not sure what the deal is but this oil turns dark brown significantly faster than the mobile 1 that I used to run. I'm about ready to switch back to a M1 for summer street duty because I don't like seeing burnt maple syrup on my dipstick unless its not the one in my car!
|
Originally Posted by Jeff_Jeske
(Post 11628422)
I'm running VR1 20W50 with E85 in my built engine. Lately I've been putting mostly highway miles on the car. In fact my last oil change had next to no WOT pulls on it. I'm not sure what the deal is but this oil turns dark brown significantly faster than the mobile 1 that I used to run. I'm about ready to switch back to a M1 for summer street duty because I don't like seeing burnt maple syrup on my dipstick unless its not the one in my car!
|
Originally Posted by Jeff_Jeske
(Post 11628422)
I'm running VR1 20W50 with E85 in my built engine. Lately I've been putting mostly highway miles on the car. In fact my last oil change had next to no WOT pulls on it. I'm not sure what the deal is but this oil turns dark brown significantly faster than the mobile 1 that I used to run. I'm about ready to switch back to a M1 for summer street duty because I don't like seeing burnt maple syrup on my dipstick unless its not the one in my car!
https://mobiloil.com/~/media/amer/us...guide-2015.pdf |
Originally Posted by SWOLN
(Post 11628487)
Maybe switch to M1 Racing 0W-50 or the 0W-30 ?
https://mobiloil.com/~/media/amer/us...guide-2015.pdf |
Originally Posted by Balrok
(Post 11628515)
~ $100 a six pack
Yes sir, that is ~ right. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:31 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands