Reasonable point.
Of course, a race is not an economy run so you don't really care about fuel
mileage other than having enough to reach the checker. Power loss is another
thing altogether. Depends on your priorities, I guess. If I had the budget
that my primary focus was on winning, then presumably I could afford to go
through a few engines, or rebuilds, to find the optimum oiling scheme. But
as Clay Reggazoni said: "To win is nice; to race is enough." I just want to
get out there, race with whomever is about my speed, and have fun driving my
car. It's important to keep it in one piece (you get aggressive with me in a
corner, I'll probably chicken out and let ya have it) so I can race it again
next time.
--Rocky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall" <tr3driver@ca.rr.com>
To: "''Friends of Triumph'Triumph'" <fot@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Fot] Oil weights?
>> 20-50 vs. 10-40? If 20-50 is overkill, so what?
>
> What about the power lost pumping that heavier oil around? That's the
> whole
> reason for the push to thinner oils for modern cars, they help improve
> fuel
> mileage by reducing losses within the motor.
>
> -- Randall
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
http://www.fot-racing.com
Fot@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
Brought to you by Team.Net consulting - Unix software specialist.
|