not ,it run exactly the same!but low temperature issue will be lessened a lot and also high temperature issue will bee lessen a lot!if you don't have extreme then synthetic will be overkill.but if you live say in Canada where temperature can range from -35 celcuis to 35 celcius ?then yes there synthetic isn't an option is probably is best!
Does full synthetic make your car run better ?
- Thread starter Merkava_4
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
I agree with ,dragrace, here at bandimere's we see it all the time synthetic oils 2 sec faster then conventional and 3.5 sec. with red line oils
Been to Bandimere many times; used to race my DSM up there when I was younger. 3.5 seconds faster in the quarter mile for most vehicles is about 200 more horspower. ie, to take something like a Mustang GT that would run mid to high 14s (this track is at 5,000 feet above sea level) and make it a low 12 second car, you'd need a supercharger kit and a small shot of nos, or a built motor and more boost.
I hope you meant 2 tenths faster or 3.5 tenths faster with synthetic (which in and of itself is a ludicrous claim; 3 tenths faster in the quarter mile is equivalent to about 20 hp on an average car; you're not gaining that much power just from switching oil!).
I agree with ,dragrace, here at bandimere's we see it all the time synthetic oils 2 sec faster then conventional and 3.5 sec. with red line oils
Been to Bandimere many times; used to race my DSM up there when I was younger. 3.5 seconds faster in the quarter mile for most vehicles is about 200 more horspower. ie, to take something like a Mustang GT that would run mid to high 14s (this track is at 5,000 feet above sea level) and make it a low 12 second car, you'd need a supercharger kit and a small shot of nos, or a built motor and more boost.
I hope you meant 2 tenths faster or 3.5 tenths faster with synthetic (which in and of itself is a ludicrous claim; 3 tenths faster in the quarter mile is equivalent to about 20 hp on an average car; you're not gaining that much power just from switching oil!).
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Kuato
I am surprised you use dino, with your severe concerns about sludge and varnish!
OK expand on that -- Do you think synthetic reduces the risk of varnish formation ?
Read the rest of the posts on page 2, they said it better than I can. Synthetic is also known to clean better than most dinos, and is more resistant to extremes of temperature. I like to think it has more "reserve power" (like in Star Trek or something) to handle adverse conditions.
I haven't seen a photo on here yet from a synthetic-run engine that had varnish. Go look at someof tig1's pictures from his M1, 10k oil change vehicles.
Originally Posted By: Kuato
I am surprised you use dino, with your severe concerns about sludge and varnish!
OK expand on that -- Do you think synthetic reduces the risk of varnish formation ?
Read the rest of the posts on page 2, they said it better than I can. Synthetic is also known to clean better than most dinos, and is more resistant to extremes of temperature. I like to think it has more "reserve power" (like in Star Trek or something) to handle adverse conditions.
I haven't seen a photo on here yet from a synthetic-run engine that had varnish. Go look at someof tig1's pictures from his M1, 10k oil change vehicles.
Last edited:
Did I just read boxcar believes that an oil change will gain 2 seconds in the quarter and redline gains 3.5.
Well golllly.
So I could have saved 700 bucks and countless bottles of nitrous and gained my best time of 12.76 at our track,on street tires,which on the run before without nitrous I ran 13.8,with just an oil brand change.
And I could hit 11s with redline in the sump.
Well call me interested. Once the track opens up imma head on down there with the charger,run a couple laps with the castrol in the sump,do an oil change in the pits and put redline in there and I should move up an entire class.
Heck if I gain 3.5 seconds that means I'm running faster than 12s and I'll have to put a cage in the car after they throw me off the track.
I've seen some real whoppers from ole boxcar but this one takes the cake.
Dude. When you write stuff like that how can you expect to be taken seriously,ever again.
Wake up. 3.5 second gain with redline. If I were them that would be a dedicated page on my website telling that story, if it were true of course.
Well golllly.
So I could have saved 700 bucks and countless bottles of nitrous and gained my best time of 12.76 at our track,on street tires,which on the run before without nitrous I ran 13.8,with just an oil brand change.
And I could hit 11s with redline in the sump.
Well call me interested. Once the track opens up imma head on down there with the charger,run a couple laps with the castrol in the sump,do an oil change in the pits and put redline in there and I should move up an entire class.
Heck if I gain 3.5 seconds that means I'm running faster than 12s and I'll have to put a cage in the car after they throw me off the track.
I've seen some real whoppers from ole boxcar but this one takes the cake.
Dude. When you write stuff like that how can you expect to be taken seriously,ever again.
Wake up. 3.5 second gain with redline. If I were them that would be a dedicated page on my website telling that story, if it were true of course.
Some of you guys have been getting your oil from the top of a giant beanstalk, haven't you? I bet it's beautiful and golden.
The only time you are going to gain 3/10th's of a second at the track from an oil change is if you changed out 15,000 mile, thickened oil from a car 3 quarts low on oil and a 4-cylinder that couldn't overcome the extra "friction".
Rule of thumb:
.1 second = 10 horsepower = 100 lbs.
.3 of a second off a track time from an oil change is like adding 3.73's/3.90's/4.10's to a car with 3.08's. Or adding a full exhaust, CAI, and tune... and even that may not add 3/10th's of a second to most cars.
And to the guy saying he's seen 2 whole seconds shaved off, or 3 or 3.5 or whatever with a particular brand of synthetic... we are smarter than that, here.
I wonder if I can hit 7's with my bike by using Redline?
The only time you are going to gain 3/10th's of a second at the track from an oil change is if you changed out 15,000 mile, thickened oil from a car 3 quarts low on oil and a 4-cylinder that couldn't overcome the extra "friction".
Rule of thumb:
.1 second = 10 horsepower = 100 lbs.
.3 of a second off a track time from an oil change is like adding 3.73's/3.90's/4.10's to a car with 3.08's. Or adding a full exhaust, CAI, and tune... and even that may not add 3/10th's of a second to most cars.
And to the guy saying he's seen 2 whole seconds shaved off, or 3 or 3.5 or whatever with a particular brand of synthetic... we are smarter than that, here.
I wonder if I can hit 7's with my bike by using Redline?
Originally Posted By: Jaymus
Some of you guys have been getting your oil from the top of a giant beanstalk, haven't you? I bet it's beautiful and golden.
The only time you are going to gain 3/10th's of a second at the track from an oil change is if you changed out 15,000 mile, thickened oil from a car 3 quarts low on oil and a 4-cylinder that couldn't overcome the extra "friction".
Rule of thumb:
.1 second = 10 horsepower = 100 lbs.
.3 of a second off a track time from an oil change is like adding 3.73's/3.90's/4.10's to a car with 3.08's. Or adding a full exhaust, CAI, and tune... and even that may not add 3/10th's of a second to most cars.
And to the guy saying he's seen 2 whole seconds shaved off, or 3 or 3.5 or whatever with a particular brand of synthetic... we are smarter than that, here.
I wonder if I can hit 7's with my bike by using Redline?
Honestly, I could give a care less. I have nothing to lose or gain by posting our findings.We did it and others drivers tested the same weekend. You guys can take it FWIW.
Forums are used to share information,facts. If they aren't appreciated,then there's no point in posting. Racing season has begun,I'm gonna use this time to take a break from this forum.
Some of you guys have been getting your oil from the top of a giant beanstalk, haven't you? I bet it's beautiful and golden.
The only time you are going to gain 3/10th's of a second at the track from an oil change is if you changed out 15,000 mile, thickened oil from a car 3 quarts low on oil and a 4-cylinder that couldn't overcome the extra "friction".
Rule of thumb:
.1 second = 10 horsepower = 100 lbs.
.3 of a second off a track time from an oil change is like adding 3.73's/3.90's/4.10's to a car with 3.08's. Or adding a full exhaust, CAI, and tune... and even that may not add 3/10th's of a second to most cars.
And to the guy saying he's seen 2 whole seconds shaved off, or 3 or 3.5 or whatever with a particular brand of synthetic... we are smarter than that, here.
I wonder if I can hit 7's with my bike by using Redline?
Honestly, I could give a care less. I have nothing to lose or gain by posting our findings.We did it and others drivers tested the same weekend. You guys can take it FWIW.
Forums are used to share information,facts. If they aren't appreciated,then there's no point in posting. Racing season has begun,I'm gonna use this time to take a break from this forum.
Originally Posted By: DragRace
Honestly, I could give a care less. I have nothing to lose or gain by posting our findings.We did it and others drivers tested the same weekend. You guys can take it FWIW.
Read what Car & Driver does. They run several tests in opposite directions and with different drivers, simply because error bars are so large. They run calculations based upon altitude. Even then, they caution people not to read too much into the results.
If one driver could take a vehicle on the 1/4 mile and show me a minimum of ten consecutive runs (at operating temperature) that had repeatable results, and then improve on it, repeatably with a different brand of oil (which would have to be done in a blind test to avoid sandbagging), then we'll talk.
The biggest source of error in any track run is the driver himself.
Honestly, I could give a care less. I have nothing to lose or gain by posting our findings.We did it and others drivers tested the same weekend. You guys can take it FWIW.
Read what Car & Driver does. They run several tests in opposite directions and with different drivers, simply because error bars are so large. They run calculations based upon altitude. Even then, they caution people not to read too much into the results.
If one driver could take a vehicle on the 1/4 mile and show me a minimum of ten consecutive runs (at operating temperature) that had repeatable results, and then improve on it, repeatably with a different brand of oil (which would have to be done in a blind test to avoid sandbagging), then we'll talk.
The biggest source of error in any track run is the driver himself.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: DragRace
Honestly, I could give a care less. I have nothing to lose or gain by posting our findings.We did it and others drivers tested the same weekend. You guys can take it FWIW.
Read what Car & Driver does. They run several tests in opposite directions and with different drivers, simply because error bars are so large. They run calculations based upon altitude. Even then, they caution people not to read too much into the results.
If one driver could take a vehicle on the 1/4 mile and show me a minimum of ten consecutive runs (at operating temperature) that had repeatable results, and then improve on it, repeatably with a different brand of oil (which would have to be done in a blind test to avoid sandbagging), then we'll talk.
The biggest source of error in any track run is the driver himself.
Read?! No reading here thanks. We do ACTUAL testing with actual cars. No reading required.
We took 4 cars,did back to back testing. We took our race gas,our tires,etc to do the testing. You guys seriously need to step back and look at the time invested as well as money invested.But again,it does not matter.
Keep reading Car and Driver,because afterall,their testing is always non bias and factual.
You guys keep wondering where posters go,think about it long and hard.I'm out,I've got racing to do.Ya'll have a good summer,it's been fun!
Originally Posted By: DragRace
Honestly, I could give a care less. I have nothing to lose or gain by posting our findings.We did it and others drivers tested the same weekend. You guys can take it FWIW.
Read what Car & Driver does. They run several tests in opposite directions and with different drivers, simply because error bars are so large. They run calculations based upon altitude. Even then, they caution people not to read too much into the results.
If one driver could take a vehicle on the 1/4 mile and show me a minimum of ten consecutive runs (at operating temperature) that had repeatable results, and then improve on it, repeatably with a different brand of oil (which would have to be done in a blind test to avoid sandbagging), then we'll talk.
The biggest source of error in any track run is the driver himself.
Read?! No reading here thanks. We do ACTUAL testing with actual cars. No reading required.
We took 4 cars,did back to back testing. We took our race gas,our tires,etc to do the testing. You guys seriously need to step back and look at the time invested as well as money invested.But again,it does not matter.
Keep reading Car and Driver,because afterall,their testing is always non bias and factual.
You guys keep wondering where posters go,think about it long and hard.I'm out,I've got racing to do.Ya'll have a good summer,it's been fun!
gzzz iam sorry I meant 3.5 tenths
dunno about run better - maybe protect better at low low and high temps and extended OCIs.
One of the bikes (97 Harley) the oil temp gauge dropped when switched from Harley conventional to Amsoil synthetic. Does that count
Now if racing stripes make it go faster, I'll run a couple strips of black electrical tape from front to back and gain heaps of go fast
One of the bikes (97 Harley) the oil temp gauge dropped when switched from Harley conventional to Amsoil synthetic. Does that count
Now if racing stripes make it go faster, I'll run a couple strips of black electrical tape from front to back and gain heaps of go fast
The facts are that synthetics keep your engine
1.Cleaner
2. Better protected in cold winter starts
3. Allow more mileage between oil changes
It's a no brainer for me!
1.Cleaner
2. Better protected in cold winter starts
3. Allow more mileage between oil changes
It's a no brainer for me!
I just just changed the oil on a Saturn I bought (2008 Astra). The dealership fill was probably Mobil 5000 5W-30. I put in 4 qts. of four year old Mobil 1 (SM) 10W-30 I bought from K-Mart on clearance for like $3 and about 3/4's of a quart of 0W-40 Mobil 1. I can't say the car is running much differently, but the fuel economy (according to the computer) has increased from 30.5 mpg in mixed driving to 30.9 mpg on average after reset. I don't know if that will last but I'll update...
I'd like to think that my engines run better on syn, but I've done the occassional run of dino enough times to know that they don't.
I've usually used syn in most of our cars, but I've also gotten most of it for pennies after MIR.
Is it better in any way?
I can't honestly say that it is, although I'd like to be able to.
I've usually used syn in most of our cars, but I've also gotten most of it for pennies after MIR.
Is it better in any way?
I can't honestly say that it is, although I'd like to be able to.
Originally Posted By: DragRace
Keep reading Car and Driver,because afterall,their testing is always non bias and factual.
I never said it was. But, at least they have actual engineers in charge of their testing. As I noted already, they caution people not to read too much into the results.
Originally Posted By: DragRace
Read?! No reading here thanks. We do ACTUAL testing with actual cars. No reading required.
We took 4 cars,did back to back testing. We took our race gas,our tires,etc to do the testing. You guys seriously need to step back and look at the time invested as well as money invested.But again,it does not matter.
Okay, good. Then you won't mind providing me the statistical analysis, including the size of your error bars in your results. Right? What systemic errors did you note? How did you account for wind? Was temperature and humidity constant through the test? How did you deal with changes in tire, coolant, and oil temperature? How did you account for tire wear? How did you account for changes in in operational viscosity of the oil? How did you preclude sandbagging?
If you can't answer these questions, then it's the same rubbish promoted by the marketers. Product A gives you X number of extra horsepower and lowers your temperatures by five degrees.
And I do take such things for what their worth - not a hill of beans unless done in a statistically rigorous fashion.
But, what do I know? I suppose Mercedes F1 team got their lead this year from switching to a magical elixir of RP, Red Line, and Lucas products. No wonder they're ahead of McLaren that uses lowly Mobil products.
Keep reading Car and Driver,because afterall,their testing is always non bias and factual.
I never said it was. But, at least they have actual engineers in charge of their testing. As I noted already, they caution people not to read too much into the results.
Originally Posted By: DragRace
Read?! No reading here thanks. We do ACTUAL testing with actual cars. No reading required.
We took 4 cars,did back to back testing. We took our race gas,our tires,etc to do the testing. You guys seriously need to step back and look at the time invested as well as money invested.But again,it does not matter.
Okay, good. Then you won't mind providing me the statistical analysis, including the size of your error bars in your results. Right? What systemic errors did you note? How did you account for wind? Was temperature and humidity constant through the test? How did you deal with changes in tire, coolant, and oil temperature? How did you account for tire wear? How did you account for changes in in operational viscosity of the oil? How did you preclude sandbagging?
If you can't answer these questions, then it's the same rubbish promoted by the marketers. Product A gives you X number of extra horsepower and lowers your temperatures by five degrees.
And I do take such things for what their worth - not a hill of beans unless done in a statistically rigorous fashion.
But, what do I know? I suppose Mercedes F1 team got their lead this year from switching to a magical elixir of RP, Red Line, and Lucas products. No wonder they're ahead of McLaren that uses lowly Mobil products.
Originally Posted By: RISUPERCREWMAN
The facts are that synthetics keep your engine
1.Cleaner
2. Better protected in cold winter starts
3. Allow more mileage between oil changes
It's a no brainer for me!
Cold Starts!
Back when Syntec came out I put some in a 76 Ford Maverick. Lived in the dorms at the time, so no place to plug in a block heater even if you had one.
It was -60F one Feb. That [censored] car started. Practically everyone else was dead in the water.
The facts are that synthetics keep your engine
1.Cleaner
2. Better protected in cold winter starts
3. Allow more mileage between oil changes
It's a no brainer for me!
Cold Starts!
Back when Syntec came out I put some in a 76 Ford Maverick. Lived in the dorms at the time, so no place to plug in a block heater even if you had one.
It was -60F one Feb. That [censored] car started. Practically everyone else was dead in the water.
Although I am a strong believer in using high quality full synthetics in as many of the lubricants in a vehicle as possible (including power steering fluid, transmissions and differentials in addition to the oil), I can't say I have ever noticed that the cars actually ran better or smoother or felt livelier or even got noticeably better gas mileage in any of the vehicles I have used them in. For me the synthetics give me peace of mind and I do it for the extra wear protection and presumably longer life of the components. The synthetics may have contributed to better gas mileage in the past but I never took any base line readings with the non-synthetics before switching over. With my two current vehicles, I am getting base line numbers with conventional fluids and am going to see if total switch overs to synthetics makes any difference in that regard. I also could never hear any difference in the engines running different brands and/or weights of oils either. That said, others here on BITOG have reported their vehicles run better on certain synthetics and/or certain oils such as the Toyota 0W-20 which some people have reported as increasing their mileage quite a bit. I don't doubt what others have reported--it's just that none of my previous vehicles seemed to make any difference in the running between conventional fluids and synthetics.
Originally Posted By: Jasper8146
Although I am a strong believer in using high quality full synthetics in as many of the lubricants in a vehicle as possible (including power steering fluid, transmissions and differentials in addition to the oil), I can't say I have ever noticed that the cars actually ran better or smoother or felt livelier or even got noticeably better gas mileage in any of the vehicles I have used them in. For me the synthetics give me peace of mind and I do it for the extra wear protection and presumably longer life of the components. The synthetics may have contributed to better gas mileage in the past but I never took any base line readings with the non-synthetics before switching over. With my two current vehicles, I am getting base line numbers with conventional fluids and am going to see if total switch overs to synthetics makes any difference in that regard. I also could never hear any difference in the engines running different brands and/or weights of oils either. That said, others here on BITOG have reported their vehicles run better on certain synthetics and/or certain oils such as the Toyota 0W-20 which some people have reported as increasing their mileage quite a bit. I don't doubt what others have reported--it's just that none of my previous vehicles seemed to make any difference in the running between conventional fluids and synthetics.
Pretty much agree with most of the above.
Although I am a strong believer in using high quality full synthetics in as many of the lubricants in a vehicle as possible (including power steering fluid, transmissions and differentials in addition to the oil), I can't say I have ever noticed that the cars actually ran better or smoother or felt livelier or even got noticeably better gas mileage in any of the vehicles I have used them in. For me the synthetics give me peace of mind and I do it for the extra wear protection and presumably longer life of the components. The synthetics may have contributed to better gas mileage in the past but I never took any base line readings with the non-synthetics before switching over. With my two current vehicles, I am getting base line numbers with conventional fluids and am going to see if total switch overs to synthetics makes any difference in that regard. I also could never hear any difference in the engines running different brands and/or weights of oils either. That said, others here on BITOG have reported their vehicles run better on certain synthetics and/or certain oils such as the Toyota 0W-20 which some people have reported as increasing their mileage quite a bit. I don't doubt what others have reported--it's just that none of my previous vehicles seemed to make any difference in the running between conventional fluids and synthetics.
Pretty much agree with most of the above.
To OP, it depends on one's car and butt dyno. If you have one of those driver's car that can transmit every mechanical and road sensation to your butt dyno, then in my opinion yes, full synthetic makes your car run better. This is speaking from my experience with the car in my sig after switching to manufacturer's recommended oil, which happens to be synthetic. It just ran smoother at higher RPMs consistently.
Originally Posted By: RISUPERCREWMAN
The facts are that synthetics keep your engine
1.Cleaner
2. Better protected in cold winter starts
3. Allow more mileage between oil changes
It's a no brainer for me!
Agreed. While I don't have a high performance vehicle, the one I do have sees more short trips than not. A few more dollars on oil now may save me loads of trouble later, and really with QSUD being so cheap it IS a no brainer for me.
The facts are that synthetics keep your engine
1.Cleaner
2. Better protected in cold winter starts
3. Allow more mileage between oil changes
It's a no brainer for me!
Agreed. While I don't have a high performance vehicle, the one I do have sees more short trips than not. A few more dollars on oil now may save me loads of trouble later, and really with QSUD being so cheap it IS a no brainer for me.
I have a pair of 30 year old Universal Japanese Motorcycles, and can say with some certainty that changing to synthetic to get the 5W grade at the bottom end paid dividends in eliminating cold clutch drag and it also lets the engine rev more freely, of that I'm sure.
Butt dyno says it's a little bit better, but who knows - these things are totally subjective and I could be feeling something that I'm looking for.
The other benefits of synthetic in an air-cooled engine; greater resistance to heat breakdown and (hopefully) shear resistance will make themselves known in the next few months. This is my first fill of synthetic and I'm waiting to see how it pans out.
Currently I'm running a diy blend of 1L 5W/50 Champion Race Synth (to get some of the extra ZDDP) and 2L 5W/40 Pennasol (re-branded as Lidl synth) and according to this, I have a viscosity of 97cSt
http://www.lubebase.com/cgi-bin/graph/calculate-blending-vg?desired_vg=97&visc1=88&visc2=118
The overall result is pleasing; no cold clutch grab and gearchanges are nice and smooth, although the quality of gearchange might deteriorate as the oil ages. Clutch slip, while not totally absent, only shows when provoked and isn't a problem, as such.
Butt dyno says it's a little bit better, but who knows - these things are totally subjective and I could be feeling something that I'm looking for.
The other benefits of synthetic in an air-cooled engine; greater resistance to heat breakdown and (hopefully) shear resistance will make themselves known in the next few months. This is my first fill of synthetic and I'm waiting to see how it pans out.
Currently I'm running a diy blend of 1L 5W/50 Champion Race Synth (to get some of the extra ZDDP) and 2L 5W/40 Pennasol (re-branded as Lidl synth) and according to this, I have a viscosity of 97cSt
http://www.lubebase.com/cgi-bin/graph/calculate-blending-vg?desired_vg=97&visc1=88&visc2=118
The overall result is pleasing; no cold clutch grab and gearchanges are nice and smooth, although the quality of gearchange might deteriorate as the oil ages. Clutch slip, while not totally absent, only shows when provoked and isn't a problem, as such.
- Status