The minimum HTHS viscosity for 5w30 oil is 2.9.
Group III Synthetics better than Group IV?
- Thread starter Ron AKA
- Start date
- Status
They may get more by using the right viscosity. Red Line clearly states that lighter weights can often be used for similar protection. Esters may be better at getting a good ring seal at a lighter visc. which adds to effeciency as do more anti friction adds under load which is when you measure power. Esters hold up better under load being more 'slippery' and holding bearing tolerances better. HTHS has more to do with the ability to maintain viscosity than ultimate viscosity. Think of an imaginary oil Wt to HTHS ratio. Pick your protection and have comfort in that it will there for the duration and that protection is easier to get when you can keep the perameters constant and use more/better addities that sometimes don't fit SM guidelines. I doubt Red Line does miracles for economy unless you can use a lighter weight or beat on it a lot but can get a few HP. When racers say they get more power it's because they dyno test often in conjunction with VOAs. It's fact. Your postulation are not.
Yes, it is a single number and it does not mean much if you believe in magic.quote:
Originally posted by surfstar:
Here's where the focus on one spec comes out again. HTHS.
According to Ron, lower is better, although according to oil companies and the standards, higher is better.
Actually they have to compete with 2.6 HTHS oils. You can read the difference off the graph. Friction modifiers work but are much less significant.
Yah, sorry I was going from memory. Not always a good thing to do at my age. I was actually thinking of a 5w20. Redline is actually 3.3 and GF-4 typically are near 2.6. For 5w30 Redline is 3.8 compared to the typical GF-4 of 2.9.
I do not know this graph data, but As I said regarding RL the graph which is NOT RL related.
Is this for fuel mileage increase? or HP increase? Think it is fuel mileage.
bruce
Is this for fuel mileage increase? or HP increase? Think it is fuel mileage.
bruce
The graph comes from this article.
http://www.iantaylor.org.uk/papers/IMechEFE2000.pdf
Yes, it is fuel efficiency, but of course fuel efficiency and net HP are the same thing. The more fuel you burn to get the same output, the more inefficient the engine is. The more inefficient the engine is the lower the net HP. In a nutshell lower HTHS oil results in less loss in the piston ring/skirt area and journal bearings. HP loss goes up in the valve train, but less than the gains in the journals and piston.
So yes if you really think your engine (valve train) needs that high HTHS oil to survive, then the loss in HP and fuel efficiency is worth it. But, really if that is the case then just use a conventional 10w40. You will get the same high HTHS and save some $$ on oil cost to make up for the higher gasoline useage. With Redline you pay more for the oil, more for the fuel, and get less HP. Does that really make sense??
http://www.iantaylor.org.uk/papers/IMechEFE2000.pdf
Yes, it is fuel efficiency, but of course fuel efficiency and net HP are the same thing. The more fuel you burn to get the same output, the more inefficient the engine is. The more inefficient the engine is the lower the net HP. In a nutshell lower HTHS oil results in less loss in the piston ring/skirt area and journal bearings. HP loss goes up in the valve train, but less than the gains in the journals and piston.
So yes if you really think your engine (valve train) needs that high HTHS oil to survive, then the loss in HP and fuel efficiency is worth it. But, really if that is the case then just use a conventional 10w40. You will get the same high HTHS and save some $$ on oil cost to make up for the higher gasoline useage. With Redline you pay more for the oil, more for the fuel, and get less HP. Does that really make sense??
"With Redline you pay more for the oil, more for the fuel, and get less HP. Does that really make sense??""
Ron believe what you want RL is sold for relability and HP If the HTHS bothers you then do as most do use the vis grade that has the HTHS numbers you want easy huh?
Also show me some dyno runs that show a loss.
SAE "generalities" mean nothing.
bruce
Ron believe what you want RL is sold for relability and HP If the HTHS bothers you then do as most do use the vis grade that has the HTHS numbers you want easy huh?
Also show me some dyno runs that show a loss.
SAE "generalities" mean nothing.
bruce
I guess it depends if you believe the HT/HS numbers that Redline puts out on their data sheets. I've always thought they looked too high - given their relative kinematic viscosities @ 100C - for the various SAE grades.
Perhaps that solves the mystery?
TS
Perhaps that solves the mystery?
TS
As with bruce, I still want to see some evidence that in actual use in a real engine, Redline oil causes a drop in either fuel economy or engine output. If RL actually did cause such losses, I'd expect we'd hear people squawking long and loud about it and hammering RL for it's presumably false advertising claims. Ron, the graph may or may not be accurate, in a research setting, but again, when you stack up all the other factors that are in operation in the "real world," I don't see Redline having the effect you claim it does. How much actual use experience do you have with the Redline product?
ekpolk,
I think he's basing these conclusions entirely on SAE papers....
In an actual application there are other parameters involved, such as the "intrafluid" friction of the basestock (for a given SAE grade) as well as how effectively it reduces friction in the valve train.
I think he's basing these conclusions entirely on SAE papers....
In an actual application there are other parameters involved, such as the "intrafluid" friction of the basestock (for a given SAE grade) as well as how effectively it reduces friction in the valve train.
TS:
I agree. What bothers me is that he's making an unsupportable leap and declaring that Redline products actually cause a reduction in output and mileage as a result of their relatively high HT/HS viscosities. As you correctly point out, there are many other factors that bear upon the actual performance of a finished oil. HT/HS is but one of the many. And again, I've seen no evidence at all that in actual use, Redline has the effect that Ron says it has. He should, IMO, be qualifying his statements as his predictions or theories, not stating them as if they are established fact. They are not.
I agree. What bothers me is that he's making an unsupportable leap and declaring that Redline products actually cause a reduction in output and mileage as a result of their relatively high HT/HS viscosities. As you correctly point out, there are many other factors that bear upon the actual performance of a finished oil. HT/HS is but one of the many. And again, I've seen no evidence at all that in actual use, Redline has the effect that Ron says it has. He should, IMO, be qualifying his statements as his predictions or theories, not stating them as if they are established fact. They are not.
Ron:
Redline has been around for decades at this point -- long before the fuel economy aspects of the ratings became critical.
More critically, those graphs are marketing B-S. The "winning" Joe Gibbs XP1 racing oil, according to JGR's site, has "Viscosity typical of a SAE 5W-20" and the other oils compared are all 30 wt oils, and the Redline being the straight SAE 30 (gee, that's fair of JGR...). Of course the 20 wt oil is going to show better hp and torque than the 30 weght oils. These graphs do not support a conclusion that in equivalent grades Redline has a hp, tq, or mpg penalty!
Redline has been around for decades at this point -- long before the fuel economy aspects of the ratings became critical.
More critically, those graphs are marketing B-S. The "winning" Joe Gibbs XP1 racing oil, according to JGR's site, has "Viscosity typical of a SAE 5W-20" and the other oils compared are all 30 wt oils, and the Redline being the straight SAE 30 (gee, that's fair of JGR...). Of course the 20 wt oil is going to show better hp and torque than the 30 weght oils. These graphs do not support a conclusion that in equivalent grades Redline has a hp, tq, or mpg penalty!
With the post of the link to the specs for the ExxonMobil 4 cSt Group III oils, I thought it would be interesting to compare those to the PetroCan VHVI and Chevron PAO base oils. See the table below.
Some comments:
Density - Seems that Group III's are better. Perhaps that is the reason they provide better natural lubricity. For the same viscosity they are more dense.
Flash Point - While the PAO has a slight advantage at the base oil level in this viscosity, if you look back to the 0w30 comparision earlier in this thread, that advantage goes away in the final product blending. PetroCan came out best at 235C.
Pour Point - Clearly the base PAO is far better in this parameter. However, as has been discussed earlier this advantage pretty much goes away once the additives have been put in the PAO. And the CCS/MRV which is what really counts is better at least with the PetroCan in the final product.
Viscosity Index - It is often said this is the best indicator of overall quality of the oil. It is also commonly thought PAO's have the advantage here. Clearly they do not. Both of these Group III's are better, with the Visom 4 excellent at 140. This means the PAO oil in comparison will need more VI improver additives and will be more susceptable to viscosity breakdown as miles accumulate.
Just my thoughts, but still concluding there is no clear advantage in a PAO over a good Group III, and the Group III's will continue to improve and dominate the synthetic oil market.
Some comments:
Density - Seems that Group III's are better. Perhaps that is the reason they provide better natural lubricity. For the same viscosity they are more dense.
Flash Point - While the PAO has a slight advantage at the base oil level in this viscosity, if you look back to the 0w30 comparision earlier in this thread, that advantage goes away in the final product blending. PetroCan came out best at 235C.
Pour Point - Clearly the base PAO is far better in this parameter. However, as has been discussed earlier this advantage pretty much goes away once the additives have been put in the PAO. And the CCS/MRV which is what really counts is better at least with the PetroCan in the final product.
Viscosity Index - It is often said this is the best indicator of overall quality of the oil. It is also commonly thought PAO's have the advantage here. Clearly they do not. Both of these Group III's are better, with the Visom 4 excellent at 140. This means the PAO oil in comparison will need more VI improver additives and will be more susceptable to viscosity breakdown as miles accumulate.
Just my thoughts, but still concluding there is no clear advantage in a PAO over a good Group III, and the Group III's will continue to improve and dominate the synthetic oil market.
I did not represent it to be a good example. But, as you have concluded it does support the fact that viscosity does matter, and that is where RL has a problem.
http://www.europeancarweb.com/projectcars/0110ec_bmw_m3_reducing_frictional_loses/photo_05.html
Here is an example of a BMW M3 showing 3-4 HP gains by using RL fluids. People use products that work in racing. RL must work or it wouldn't be as highly regarded.
Here is an example of a BMW M3 showing 3-4 HP gains by using RL fluids. People use products that work in racing. RL must work or it wouldn't be as highly regarded.
http://www.lgmotorsports.com/catalog/index.php
Tell this guy RL doesn't give more HP. He has posted dyno runs on www.corvetteforum.com
Tell this guy RL doesn't give more HP. He has posted dyno runs on www.corvetteforum.com
When RL submit their oils for quality controlled standard GF-4 tests and pass I will believe it.
Ooops sorry -- accidental post doubling...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
