Racing Oil lab tests - and others

[lorax]

GM Performance Parts – tested to the limits, backed by GM

GM Performance Parts crate engines undergo a 50-hour, full-throttle engine dynamometer validation that requires the engines perform from peak horsepower to peak torque. GMPP also installs crate engines in its own engineering vehicles for testing and continuous improvement. That commitment to quality and durability enables General Motors to back GM Performance Parts crate engines with a 24-month/50,000-mile warranty (whichever occurs first). All GM Performance Parts components carry a 12-month/12,000-mile warranty.

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news ... P_lsx.html

In light of this I guess GM's oil recommendation must have some merit.

Oil recommendation for what engine? Their recommendation for a LS7, or LS9, under EPA requirements to have the converter last 100,000 plus miles, or a LSX 454 crate engine,
I can tell you Mercury Marine is not recommending Mobil 1 or Pennzoil Ultra 5/20 or 0/30 SN/GF5 oil for their 1350 HP Quad cam 4 valve twin turbocharged 540.

[GARY C]

GM’s Dr. Jamie Meyer told us that production engines for passenger cars and trucks endure a thousand-hour regimen on the dyno, while crate engines are typically proven through a 50 hour torture test before getting the stamp of approval. This engine is intended for a very different, very specific purpose, and the validation process reflects that. “GM engineers developed a unique schedule to validate the LSX454R to the equivalent of 600 drag-strip passes when maintained with regular maintenance schedules and run to Chevrolet’s prescribed operationg parameters for the engine,” explains development engineer Steve Felix. Dr Meyer adds that this includes burnouts, making it a true representation of what three years at 200 passes down the 1320 annually will do to an engine.

http://www.corvetteonline.com/features/ ... e-lsx454r/
I found this on the 454, I wonder if they use the same oil during their torture test as they recommend to the end user in either their street or race engines.

Lorex, do you know if GM gives an oil recommendation on their performance crate engines and if so do you know what they recommend?

[lorax]

Lorex, do you know if GM gives an oil recommendation on their performance crate engines and if so do you know what they recommend?

I have no idea what they recommend for their crate engines like the LSX 454. But I would be a little surprised if it was the same oil they recommend for the Vette, Caddy and Camaro. Why would they. They aren't under any constraints.
Would you run the same oil in your Pro Mod as the truck that hauled it to the track?

I can't speak for others, but if I had a LS9 Vette, I doubt I would run Dexos after it was out of warranty. If it lived that long.

[GARY C]

I can't speak for others, but if I had a LS9 Vette, I doubt I would run Dexos after it was out of warranty. If it lived that long.

Yeah I was just reading this thread about Dexos and it sounds more like it's for profit not protection.
http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/1 ... -for-2011/

[lorax]

I can't speak for others, but if I had a LS9 Vette, I doubt I would run Dexos after it was out of warranty. If it lived that long.

Yeah I was just reading this thread about Dexos and it sounds more like it's for profit not protection.
http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/1 ... -for-2011/

The story behind Dexos is the that before the founding of ILSAC, GM was putting demands on the oil companies and they were bocking at the idea of the manufactures dictating their oil. GM pretty much let them know that they would meet GM's requirements or their oils would not be listed as approved for warranty. To my knowledge, up until then, any oil that met the correct grade wt and was the current API certification was approved by all manufactures. GM was going to change that. The original intent was that if the oil companies wouldn't comply, the ONLY oil you could use would be DEXOS from a GM dealers.
Once the other manufactures jumped on board and created ILSAC, the oil companies were pretty much surrounded by manufactures and EPA mandates, and many like Mobil started blending DEXOS oils. NO doubt there is a dollar amount attached to the Dexos logo on the label. Also, any failings of an oil like Mobil 1 with the Dexos, or "energy conserving" sunburst can be attributed directly to ILSAC, and the EPA.
There are some 'word" games being played here as well. Amsoil claims their "signature" 0/30 and 5/30 oils "meets or exceed" Dexos requirements, and that they are "suitable" replacements for Dexos. How the bottle does not carrying either the API licensed donut, or the DEXOS logo. There are a number of Amsoil oils that do not carry the API licensed donut because Amsoil does not agree with some of the requirements, specifically those regarding ZDDP and catalytic converters. They have been rather public about this.
They do sell API licensed and certified oils, but they dropped the donut seal from alot of their products.
However....Amsoil Signature Series 0/30 and 5/30 oils ARE NOT on GM's "official" list of DEXOS approved oils. Make of that what you will.


My personal opinion is, the DEXOS logo on the oil is paramount to a warning label if you don't have a car in warranty. It should look more like a skull and cross bones. I am sure the oil companies would never blend the camel piss if it wasn't for the GM warranty requirements.

Interesting piece of useless trivia. Pennzoil's Platinum Series oil is Dexos approved and certified. However, RATS highly touted Pennzoil Ultra, that is factory fill in new Chrylser Hemi RTs and claimed to be used straight out of the bottle by Penske Indy team, (Not Nascar ), is NOT DEXOS certified.
Does that make Ultra a lesser oil because it does not meet GM DEXOS requirements?

[Warp Speed]

Yeah, that's pretty old. Tim hasn't worked for Tosco/Conoco for a decade, since he co founded Rockett Fuel, and 76 Union hasn't been involved in Nascar or Hendricks for just about as long. Tim was the MAN when he was with Tosco/Conoco.
When QS became involved with Hendricks the whole thing pretty much started all over again. Things have change in Nascar since that was written.
But it DOES point out what I have said all along. You can kick your bench tests and what you thought you knew about a given oil's performance, and kick it out the door. ITS ALL APPLICATION SPECIFIC!! What works great for keep contaminates suspended can cause foaming, things that keep deposits and varnish under control and keep ZDDP and other anti wear compounds from doing their job.
Looking at bearing in a engine is a waste of time. Virtually any decent oil can keep your bearing looking good. That's more of a crank prep, roundness and clearance issue, not an oil issue.
But if your rings are welding themselves to the ring lands, and your PR tips are frying, or your oil pressure heads south after a few minutes of balls out WOT, or turns to broken down water thin crap after a short period in the pan, you need to be addressing your oil, not some chart pasted on the internet.

X2!!!!!!

Oil, just like anything else in a performance engine, is a compromise. Anti-foaming agents and friction modifiers battle each other. Mix in HIGH temps and High levels of depression and things change REAL quick!

As Lorax has been saying all along, combination/usage specific!!!!!!!

And unless Mr."I have a dyno" is refering to an AVL, little can be duplicated from "real world" conditions, especially when it comes to testing oils.......................

[Kevin Johnson]

Yeah, that's pretty old. Tim hasn't worked for Tosco/Conoco for a decade, since he co founded Rockett Fuel, and 76 Union hasn't been involved in Nascar or Hendricks for just about as long. Tim was the MAN when he was with Tosco/Conoco.
When QS became involved with Hendricks the whole thing pretty much started all over again. Things have change in Nascar since that was written.
But it DOES point out what I have said all along. You can kick your bench tests and what you thought you knew about a given oil's performance, and kick it out the door. ITS ALL APPLICATION SPECIFIC!! What works great for keep contaminates suspended can cause foaming, things that keep deposits and varnish under control and keep ZDDP and other anti wear compounds from doing their job.
Looking at bearing in a engine is a waste of time. Virtually any decent oil can keep your bearing looking good. That's more of a crank prep, roundness and clearance issue, not an oil issue.
But if your rings are welding themselves to the ring lands, and your PR tips are frying, or your oil pressure heads south after a few minutes of balls out WOT, or turns to broken down water thin crap after a short period in the pan, you need to be addressing your oil, not some chart pasted on the internet.

X2!!!!!!

Oil, just like anything else in a performance engine, is a compromise. Anti-foaming agents and friction modifiers battle each other. Mix in HIGH temps and High levels of depression and things change REAL quick!

As Lorax has been saying all along, combination/usage specific!!!!!!!

And unless Mr."I have a dyno" is refering to an AVL, little can be duplicated from "real world" conditions, especially when it comes to testing oils.......................

I have already pointed out that even the AVL Schrick active dyno does not replicate lateral acceleration accurately because the system itself is not under acceleration.

In this case you have engine builders agreeing that the dyno imparts as severe or more severe conditions as on the track.

Also, I am a little confused -- did you and Lorax actually read the paper or is it just happenstance that your comments mirror theirs?

[Warp Speed]

Yeah, that's pretty old. Tim hasn't worked for Tosco/Conoco for a decade, since he co founded Rockett Fuel, and 76 Union hasn't been involved in Nascar or Hendricks for just about as long. Tim was the MAN when he was with Tosco/Conoco.
When QS became involved with Hendricks the whole thing pretty much started all over again. Things have change in Nascar since that was written.
But it DOES point out what I have said all along. You can kick your bench tests and what you thought you knew about a given oil's performance, and kick it out the door. ITS ALL APPLICATION SPECIFIC!! What works great for keep contaminates suspended can cause foaming, things that keep deposits and varnish under control and keep ZDDP and other anti wear compounds from doing their job.
Looking at bearing in a engine is a waste of time. Virtually any decent oil can keep your bearing looking good. That's more of a crank prep, roundness and clearance issue, not an oil issue.
But if your rings are welding themselves to the ring lands, and your PR tips are frying, or your oil pressure heads south after a few minutes of balls out WOT, or turns to broken down water thin crap after a short period in the pan, you need to be addressing your oil, not some chart pasted on the internet.

X2!!!!!!

Oil, just like anything else in a performance engine, is a compromise. Anti-foaming agents and friction modifiers battle each other. Mix in HIGH temps and High levels of depression and things change REAL quick!

As Lorax has been saying all along, combination/usage specific!!!!!!!

And unless Mr."I have a dyno" is refering to an AVL, little can be duplicated from "real world" conditions, especially when it comes to testing oils.......................

I have already pointed out that even the AVL Schrick active dyno does not replicate lateral acceleration accurately because the system itself is not under acceleration.

In this case you have engine builders agreeing that the dyno imparts as severe or more severe conditions as on the track.

Latteral acceleration loads mainly have an effect on system design and oil control within the engine, but have very little affect on oil formulation required. Knowing you Kevin, you will come back with the fact that you could have an oil formulation that may work better in a poorly designed oil system, but I would rather fix the system than band aid it with a formulation that would be a bigger compromise than it already is.

Let's just stick to the topic at hand.............bench testing oils, and the relationship (or lack there of) to the real world!

I believe the article you posted points in that very direction. Cup enviroments are extreme, but relative none the less!

[Kevin Johnson]

Latteral acceleration loads mainly have an effect on system design and oil control within the engine, but have very little affect on oil formulation required. Knowing you Kevin, you will come back with the fact that you could have an oil formulation that may work better in a poorly designed oil system, but I would rather fix the system than band aid it with a formulation that would be a bigger compromise than it already is.

I suggest you review Porsche's travails with air entrainment over the last four decades and how air release and anti-foaming might conceivably be relevant in an oil formulation and led to them putting up a video modeling one of their engines at AVL Schrick at the Ring.

Moving on...

Let's just stick to the topic at hand.............bench testing oils, and the relationship (or lack there of) to the real world!

I believe the article you posted points in that very direction. Cup enviroments are extreme, but relative none the less!

I am exactly on topic. Did you read the article?

[Warp Speed]

I suggest you review Porsche's travails with air entrainment over the last four decades and how air release and anti-foaming might conceivably be relevant in an oil formulation and led to them putting up a video modeling one of their engines at AVL Schrick at the Ring.

Moving on...

I am familiar with the Porsche's test at AVL. Did they work on improving the design of the engine, or just formulate an oil to cover up the problems the design had?

I am exactly on topic. Did you read the article?

No, didn't read the full article, just glanced over what you posted. No need for me to purchase an article that was done 10-15 years ago. Sooooo many things have changed since then, in both engine design, materials, temps, usage and testing methods, that it would be counter productive for me to do so. I perform testing, like mentioned in the article, EVERY day.......on an AVL.
We work with the engineers at both Shell/QS and Mobile to formulate oils that are specific to our needs. Testing them on a spin rig is a WASTE of time. That is the real topic here! As the portion of the article you posted states:

" These field results indicated that many of the
industry standard oil tests did not address the
specialized oil requirements needed for the extreme
environment of Winston Cup Racing.

It was determined from these racing results that
additional full scale engine testing with NASCAR
compliant engines would be necessary to demonstrate
on track performance."


Again, Cup is an extreme, but it is relavent to the subject, just to a lesser, or varying degree!


Now...................I need to get back to the oil testing I am currently conducting...........on an AVL!

[GARY C]

With GM and others being able to do 50 plus hour torture test and Cup being able to do entire race simulations on their dynos can you guys share what they found on track that these test did not show, I am guessing that with GM doing actual race testing with their LSX they have discovered that the dyno will not duplicate all thats needed.

[swatson454]

I bet particle analysis plays a pretty big role.

[Kevin Johnson]

With GM and others being able to do 50 plus hour torture test and Cup being able to do entire race simulations on their dynos can you guys share what they found on track that these test did not show, I am guessing that with GM doing actual race testing with their LSX they have discovered that the dyno will not duplicate all thats needed.

Warp Speed left out the next sentence: "The RCR Research Team has developed a dynamometer test which was found to be as severe or more severe than on track racing." How would they be able to objectively judge comparative levels of wear? By training technicians to do so in a consistent, repeatable manner. This is covered in a good research methods course.

The article left out the titles of the references; there are four:

Sheiretov, T., Yoon, H., Cusano, C., 1998, Scuffing Under Dry Sliding Conditions-Part I: Experimental Studies,
Tribol. Trans, vol. 41, p 435-446.

Ludema,K.C.: A review of scuffing and running-in of lubricated surfaces, with asperities and oxides in perspective. Wear,100 (1984) 315-331.

Shuster, M., Mahler, F. and Crysler, D. Metallurgical and metrological examinations of
the cylinder liner - piston ring surfaces after heavy duty diesel engine testing. STLE
Tribology Transactions, 42(1999)1, pp. 116–125.

H.A. Spikes and A. Cameron, Additive interference in dibenzyl disulfide EP lubrication, ASLE Trans., 17 (1974) 283-289.

[Warp Speed]

Kevin, maybe I missed it, or it wasn't present in the cover sheet you posted. When did this testing at RCR take place?

[Kevin Johnson]

Kevin, maybe I missed it, or it wasn't present in the cover sheet you posted. When did this testing at RCR take place?

The article does not state specifically when the testing was performed. I have a call in to Tim Wusz; he might be able to answer that.

A few other questions that I wanted to ask:

1) Were seven different engines built or the same engine rebuilt seven times?

2) Do you feel that a dyno test can still be devised that will be as severe or more severe than on the track testing?

3) Is my impression correct that none of the oils tested represented a final choice?

4) Was there any further test that you wish could have been performed?