That is a good question...(exerienced moderator please chime in)...

 

Kartweb is right on money. I saw an episode of Two Guys Garage on Speed and they dynoed one of there camaro projects before/after with Royal Purple I believe. They got similar dyno results just from changing fluids.

 

hi, welcome to the thread.... you should read everything, not just parts of it. this is something that has been talked about several times from me.

we will try agian tomorrow. I will make sure the fluids are nice and warm before I try again.

 

just be careful of some Amsoil motor oils as last time i checked not all of them meet industry standards...

 

Please point me to where the thread discusses reading torque and power graphs...

 

lookforward to your (warm fluids test ) Speed - I tend to think the fluids would have been welll warm by your third pull in the original test though .

 

Brettus, I kinda thought the same thing... but unless Amsoil truly did TAKE power rather then FREE power. that is the only reason. we will find out tomorrow. if the warm fluid shows no gain then simply put Amsoil did take away power.... simple as that right? (as long as conditions are the same.)

Hedgecore, this whole thread has been about people telling me how the amsoil pulled less power throughout the power band except at the extreamly high RPMs. I have also on several occassions said that I feel this might have been due to the thicker cooler fluids after the oil changes. (I of course could be compleatly wrong, we will find out more tomorrow.) I dont know how to be more clear then that.

I really dont mean to be an ***, but if you didnt catch that, you didnt read the thread.


YES THE AMSOIL PULLED LESS POWER THROUGHOUT THE POWER BAND EXCEPT IN HIGH RPMs. I EXPECT THIS IS DUE TO THE COOLER THICKER OILs AFTER THE OIL CHANGES. I WILL FIND OUT MORE TOMORRW WHEN I REDYNO THE CAR WITH WARMER FLUIDS. I OF COURSE COULD BE COMPLEATLY WRONG.

 

See, you're not really addressing the issue i was. I read the posts, with significant interest...thanks for posting all you have!

However, my point is to determine which graph is more suitable for performance. At what point is the area under the graph matched in each run by the new oil, which is preforming better in the higher RPM's.

The point is that it's not 5 more horse, it's 5 over the range...both values are important, not just the 5hp...both variables are significant in a measurement like power. I've seen guys over in the clubrsx forum have their cars tuned for peak HP, at the sake of actual performance(those cars have a high rpm bias, somewhat like the rx8). I'm just wondering if any 13b tuning pro's could chime in here and tell us how that 5 over the range compares to the higher peak...simple to them...i'm not sure.

If having the fluids broken/warm/whatever solves this, then great...in the end we meantime, i was questioning how to read the graph.

 

That doesn't mean a thing and is definitely doesn't mean that the oil can't outperform oils that do meet those standards. Just as not having enough of any one thing will cause an oil not too meet base standards, having too much of anything, no matter how good, will also cause an oil to not meet those standards. It's a good oil and perfectly safe to use.

 

I was reading the thread and had questions about the whole operating temp issue that you talked about. Not wanting to sound like a Newb, I was nervous to ask for clarification. I think I understand though, now that you worded it COOLER=THICKER. The whole issue with the new Amsoil is that is was "thinner"....meaning less loss due to friction. I was wondering how Temp would affect the results, but now I understand what you were saying...that the Amsoil was not heated up to optimal temps to see the true gains. So....you're thinking that heating the oil up, will make it thinner and will free up more power.

It will be interesting to see if there are any improvements on peak power, as well as whether the thinner/hotter Amsoil hp/torque curves will match up better with the Royal Purple throughout the whole range.

 

hedgecore, sorry, I thought you were trying to be an ***. yes I would rather have the more power through out the range then lose the power and gain it in only the top end.

Kwescott, you got it.

will post more tomorrow. time for bed had a big night working on Vipers FC.

 

I know the fact that gl-5 oil can be destructive to some copper components but as per our manual or the service manual, the oil that is recommended is 75w-90 gl-5 or gl-4. This would lead me to believe that our parts are not susceptible to the corrosion caused by the gl-5 oils. Would this be correct?

Never got an answer on this ... does anyone know that our tranny is perfectly safe for gl-5 oils. LIke the amsoil severe gear 75w90.

 

last time i saw an analysis, they had enough anti-friction additives in to eat your cat fairly quickly all because they had to over-compensate for a lackluster additive package... which is why they failed to meet API standards


...and from the looks of the dyno they still haven't made an oil thats really up to snuff

 

So your concerns are not with an engine oil that can't protect the engine adequately. That's the point. That's what it sounds like when you say to be careful about it. Idemitsu isn't good for a cat either but people still use it in rotaries. I personally think it's overrated. It's the additive package that makes a motor oil what it is. Without them, no oil would work.
BTW: What's a cat?

 

Rotarygod,

Any input into the GL-5 debate? Would a GL-5 tranny fluid negatively affect our syncros?

 

Don't you think I'm controversial enough already?

 

Don't be scared to stir up a little controvery.

What's your opinion on the tranny fluid?

 

As with my engine oil, since I only use RP I don't really have another opinion! If Mazda says it can use either GL4 or 5, it's probably fine, synthetic or otherwise. Not all syncros are made out of the same materials. There are even 2 different types of syncros in manual transmissions the use different fluids. My manual Honda for example uses 30W motor oil rather than gear oil.

 

If you had a choice between an oil with an a great wear additive package that was great in all categories or an oil that sacrifices some aspects to try to come close to being decent in wear... what would you choose? Probably choice A because i guarandamntee you choice B has no advantage whatsoever in any category.

regarding idemitsu... 90% of the people on this board believe if something works on a race car is must work extra good for street use - not really news

 

The API standard is a mute point in this thread as considering that the xl, series 2000, severe gear, and the man trans oil all meet standards. While other amsoil may not the ones recommended for the rx8 have. If I'm wrong here please correct me.

From amsoil website

XLM 5W-20 Synthetic Motor Oil
API SM/CF, SL, SJ ...
ILSAC GF-4, 3 ...
ACEA A1/B1
JASO VTW
GM 6094M
Ford WSS-M2C930-A
Daimler Chrysler MS-6395N

AMSOIL Series 2000 Synthetic 0W-30 Motor Oil meets or exceeds the engine protection requirements of all domestic and foreign gasoline and diesel engines specifying the following:
* API SL/CF, SJ, SH
* ILSAC GF-2, GF-3
* ACEA A1/B1, A2/B2, A3/B3
* Chrysler MS-6395M
* Ford WSS-M2C-913A/B
* GM 4718M, 6094M
* VW 502.00 (HTHS is 3.4)
* DaimlerChrysler 229.5, 229.3
* JASO VTW

SEVERE GEAR
API GL-5 & MT-1, MIL-PRF-2105E, Dana SHAES 234 (Formerly Eaton PS-037) for 250,000 miles, Mack GO-J, Arvin/Meritor 0-76N (75W-90), plus hypoid gear oil specifications from all domestic and foreign manufacturers such as GM, Ford and Daimler Chrysler.

Synthetic Manual Transmission and Transaxle Gear Lube 75W-90
Meets GL-4 performance specifications required by some models of Acura, Hyundai, Infiniti, Kia, Land Rover, Lexus, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, Volkswagen, Hino Mitsubishi-Fuso, and Zetor. Ideal for muscle car transmissions such as Muncie, Borg Warner, Saginaw, Ford Toploader, Dearborn and New Process. Also recommended for Gear Vendors Gear Splitters.

 

BREAKING NEWS!!!!

Live from the RX8Club:







.

 

he he he he he he he

 

ok, I hate to make this thread even more confusing.... although this might also just make a whole lot more sense.


anyways, got the car re dynoed today.

we decided 4th gear was the gear to use as it made no difference on any run we have made, and since it took less time (less abuse on the engine) we will use 4th gear after the first run today. (run 7)

RUN 7 - 185.6 (5th gear)
RUN 8 - 185.1 (4th gear)
RUN 9 - 201.1 (4th gear)
RUN 10 - 201.2 (4th gear)

I have put all of the runs next to each other and discovered that the culprit is really something in the computer (or something like that.) if you look at all of the runs the "bad runs" all are running rich. you can see the car getting richer and richer.... to rich.

all of the "good runs" the car was much closer to the optimum air / fuel ratio. I will post more graphs later, but take a look at this one, these are all of the runs from today. more so look at the air / fuel.....

also today was a much warmer day. 80 degrees today, Saturdays runs were at 67 degrees.

also today’s runs show that the car consistently started to fall off at 8,500.

Basically I don’t think the comparison in "oils" is comparable in either way at this point.

 

Wow that's a huge variation in power from run to run and day to day. How do you compare anything with variation like that?

 

I totally agree....

Speed....did the new HP numbers match what you expected to see with warming up the oil....or is everything a wash at this point?

Maybe I don't want free oil