Viscosity and HP, petro vs. syn

[Collie]

The Sept 2004 issue of Car Craft has an article on pages 58-63 titled "A Slippery Subject".
The Latest Trends in Synthetic Engine Oil Technology.

A built 454 SMALL block Chevy is dyno'd using
1) petro 20w50. 2) QS Full Syn 10w30 3) QS Full Syn 5w20.

There is a very modest gain with this particular engine. At 5000 rpm a top gain from 522HP to 532HP was made going from 20w50 petro to 5w20 QS full syn. Any gains from 3000-6000 rpm other than
the plus at 5000 rpm were nearly insignificant. 1 to 6 HP

We are left wondering what brand of 20w50 petro was used, could be QS as well, but it goes unnamed. (?).

I'm risking a flaming because this article is NOT online (yet?). Just thought it may be worth picking up a copy if so inclined.

 

[MolaKule]

The gain in Hp could have resulted from simply using the lower viscosity fluid.

Synthetic? Havenen't seen the article but are these really synthetics or Group III fluids?

 

[sbc350gearhead]

I saw a similar test in car craft a couple of years ago, comparing valvoline 20w50, 10w30 and mobil 1 0w30 in a 392 ford.

http://carcraft.com/techarticles/15378/

 

[Jelly]

When I see all these "mineral vs. syn" horsepower comparisons, they always use a lower viscosity synthetic lube.

Hmmmm...

 

[thedawk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jelly:
When I see all these "mineral vs. syn" horsepower comparisons, they always use a lower viscosity synthetic lube.

Hmmmm...

---

Isn't the rule of thumb that you can lower your viscosity whith synthetic? I've always thought that one of the advantages of using a synthetic is that you could go with a lower viscosity because it held up better than dino. That's why there is such a push these days for the lower 20 and 30 weights - lower viscosity = less parasitic loss = better fuel efficiency and hp gains.