Does Redline kill trannies?
- Thread starter Jon Dalton
- Start date
- Status
You mean introduced it into the retail channels. A Mobil 1 racing oil has existed for years.
Mobil has been quietly engaging in "market segmentation" for quite some time.
You have a V-twin motorcycle oil and water-cooled motorcycle oil, the Delvac-based SUV motor oil, the Racing Oil, 0W-20, 0W-30, 0W-40, 5w30, 10w30, and 15W-50.
That doesn't include a wide range of marine, industrial, and aviation lubricants.
That's all very fortunate for companies like RP, Redline, and Amsoil since it gives them another place to buy base stocks, blend stocks, and additives for their bottling operations.
Correcto, M1 that the "little" people can procure has little to do with the multiple racing formulations used, in spite of marketing and Penske's commercials leading us to believe otherwise. A common bait and switch technique in corporate America by market drivers.
All the PCMO retail formulations are remarkably similar aside from Delvac.
Mickey, I am impressed with your depth of knowledge of formulating, I thought you were more of a mechanical test cell type.
Terry
[ September 25, 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Terry ]
Thanks, Mickey, you captured my sentiment exactly in a very brief and incisive post.
P.S: Thanks to my poor wording, my prior post might have been misconstrued as beating on manufacturers for not releasing fluid specs. That is not what I meant. What I was trying to say was that in a scenario where such specs were not released, an aftermarket company must do exhaustive testing before recommending their fluid in that application. And since specs aren't available and reverse engineering is a very inexact science, testing in this context means running the fluid in the exact application and doing appropriate post-run analysis.
P.S: Thanks to my poor wording, my prior post might have been misconstrued as beating on manufacturers for not releasing fluid specs. That is not what I meant. What I was trying to say was that in a scenario where such specs were not released, an aftermarket company must do exhaustive testing before recommending their fluid in that application. And since specs aren't available and reverse engineering is a very inexact science, testing in this context means running the fluid in the exact application and doing appropriate post-run analysis.
190k on my ZF and I finally got around to changing the fluid. RP GL-4/5 Smooth.
As with Goodyear and race tires, oil manufacturers provide custom oils, not only track specific but engine and weather specific, to professional racing teams.
The Mobil 1 Racing Oil is not customized nor does it sell for $40-120 per quart, and Mobil has not represented otherwise. I am reasonably sure that if you have a need for that type of oil, someone at Exxon Mobil would be happy to work with you.
It is the same oil that was made available at local tracks across the U.S. to weekend racers and local teams.
If you think of it as the 0w30 API SL oil with 50% more in the way of zinc, phosphorous, moly, and calcium, you're pretty close.
The only risk you take in using it is that you may poison the catalytic converter if the API's phosphorous standard is sound, and many believe it is not.
MolaKule
Staff member
Cheron, Ehtyl, and a host of other companies make PAO's with qualities meeting and exceeding EXXONMObile's oils.
Hatco makes great esters as does approx. six other companies.
Additives, well you don't have to go to the big three or four companies for additives anymore. The market has changed.
EXXOnobile is NOT the only player in town, and that is a great advantage for the smaller formulator and blender.
That's even more fortunate for companies like RP, Redline, and Amsoil since it gives them more places to buy base stocks, blend stocks, and additives for their bottling operations.
The point, of course, is that RP, Red Line, Amsoil, Neo Synthetic, and a host of small outfits don't actually make base stocks, blend stocks, and additives.
Innovation requires raw materials. Chevron's hydrocracking, Exxon Mobil's PAOs and esters, Ethyl and Lubrizol's additives, Hatco's ester are where the innovation is, where the patents reside, where the research takes place, and where the investment is made.
This makes it possible for niche marketers to increase this additive, or that blend stock, and put it up in a container.
XOM has an advantage with M1 bc they do produce the basestocks and additives. But companies like Amsoil have a big advantage as well bc they can buy whatever the want from who ever they want and create a great product. It will come with a high price though.
Right.
American Motors, to give one example, had a problem. It bought transmissions, rear axles, ignitions, alternators, and other components from Ford, Chrysler, and GM.
That did not prevent it from developing compact cars, or high gas mileage vehicles, or filling other niches.
What it did prevent them from is making money.
Each car American Motors sold made as much money or more for its suppliers than it did for AM.
That's pretty much the situation the bottling operations work with. In order to make any money they have to add their profit to the profit the actual manufacturers they're buying from are making on each quart of their product they sell.
And they can only be as innovative as Exxon Mobil, Hatco, Chevron, Ethel, Lubrizol, Equilon, and the other manufacturers are since what the big boys make is all they have to work with.
Thats a good point. They can only be as good as what these large companies are producing. Oils like Mobil 1, Pennzoil and Castrol also don't have the luxury of being non-api so they might even have to be more clever in formulating. As we've seen over the years, their are many great low priced conventional oils using decent additives and doing a great job in most situations. And for Mobil 1, it's tough to beat bc ExxonMobil makes everything in their own oils where as Amsoil is subject to higher prices bc they are out sourcing everything to make their oils. The big companies also work closely with many race teams and while we don't get those particular oils, I do think the technology trickles down in some form or another which is how Mobil 1 SuperSyn came about I believe.
5 years ago I would have been shaking the head in agreement confidently. Thats changing Mickey.
Consider cutting edge small outfits like LubeControl,Auto-RX,Luberon,non petroleum/veggie based lubes in Europe and N.America that are outrunning the big guys add packs with technology both old and new ? Some at a fraction of the cost of the old standards.
Theres plenty of lubricant technology untapped that with the price of crude is about to spring on the scene with "disruptive technologies" that I predict will break the monolithic kahuna's lock on the market.
grossomottoo my good mate. I agree exactly with your post. I recently purchased a gallon of MT90 to go in my 220,000km Mazda Turbo (GT). 2nd gear syncro's are nearly gone. I decided to hold off changing but I'm sure if I had, and the trans finally went, in the back of my mind I'd be thinking RL killed my trans which of course it didn't. I'll get a rebuild first then run the MT90. 75W90NS is fine in our Outback so it should be excellent IMO.
I hesitate to continue to get into this.
I personally would not believe for one moment that Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, and the other oil companies don't follow, research, and understand what's what in non-petroleum lubricants. But I also understand that it would take the entire soybean output of the American midwest to lubricate America's vehicles each year. Price non-petroleum lubricants when that supply-and-demand readjusts vegetable oil prices.
Consider Auto-Rx. It's not an innovation. It's the application of a well-known printing industry product to automobiles. Several of the oil companies and a couple of the big chemical companies make esters that could be used to do exactly the same thing.
There's no trick in finding a niche and doing a little arbitrage (buying cheap in one market, selling dear in another) through a clever application of an existing product and good marketing.
That is not innovation. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's not driving the industry to improvement.
Developing the technology and then building the manufacturing capacity to make a synthetic motor oil that sells for under $5 a quart is.
There's a place for the little guy in just about any market. Filling niches, however, is not innovation.
MolaKule
Staff member
I would have to respectfully disgree with your last point.
Filling niches often does require innovation.
Case in point. Take Renewable Lubricants company. They are very innovative in using and applying new plant-derived esters to lubricant markets. They are so innovative in the fact they have a host of patents on their natural base oils and formulated lubricants. To "top-it-off" (no pun intended) they are NOT one of the big four, either.
And if you read the technical literature, they don't just use soybean oil or any one natural oil. By using a series of different oils, they can produce natural oil formulations superior to Mobil 1, and also be 100% biodegradable.
So I am more optimistic the smaller firms can innovate as well.
BTW, it was Amsoil that formulated and marketed the first API approved full synthetic oil in NA in 1972. In 1977, Mobil marketed the first worldwide synthetic engine oil. (Source: Synthetic Lubricants Reach New Heights, Tribology and Lubrication Technology , September 2004, p. 64.)
Now back to the Gertrag transmission. I asked earlier if anyone could point to the oil used as having caused this problem, not with third party hearsay, not with innuendos, but just plain data. Anyone, anyone? Yes, I stole that line from "Farris Buhler's Day Off."
[ September 26, 2004, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
Why Mickey ? Please share your honest and obviously studied ,opinions, I for one enjoy them !
An analagous presumption was made by the legacy airlines 20 years ago, tell Southwest and Jet Blue that niche players can't change a whole industry given market conditions ripe for change!
Auto-RX :
Having peformed proprietary testing and consult related to this product including work related to your "former" employer, Lubrizol, DOD, I respectfully disagree with that evaluation. If the lube companies could produce a Auto-RX knock off they already would have and included it in the GF4/SM spec oils, not to mention new spec HDD formulations. I have observed one major lube company attempt to copy Frank Miller's formula in a high mileage marketed formula ( after Auto-RX was presented to them ) and they did a poor job of it ! Only thing maximum about their formula was the hype.
I reiterate my appreciation of your perspective shared here !!
Hopefully, future automotive consumers WILL have access to BITOG. Using it as an unbiased source for evaluating lube products and testing. Allowing them to cut through the hype that unchallenged marketing has sold them for years!
Terry
[ September 26, 2004, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Terry ]
Everyone has an opinion.
The majors haven't felt the need to build their markets by tearing down the little guys.
I'm not sure what it accomplishes for the little guys to insinuate the only reason their product sells for 1.5x or 2x the going rate for the majors is because unlike the majors they care about consumers and use expensive ingredients.
Like lead (Neo Synthetic)?
If someone believes they get 1.5x or 2x the benefit from a quart of "Amazium Elixir", more power to them.
I'd rather stick to the facts.
MolaKule
Staff member
I hope that is the case. However, we have had people on this board in the past who have done just that.
\
The smaller firms often do use more exotic, more expensive ingredients than do the bugger firms. This is called innovation.
Hey, it's called competition in the free market enterpise system.
MolaKule
Staff member
Ah, em, (cough!), [clear throat], yes that was a typo.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked