If Redline's so good, why does it need Moly?

Not open for further replies.
May 27, 2002
Cause at some point in an engine under stress the wedge of ( any base stock) oil film will be broken and you have moly at high temps/high pressure areas protecting instead of galling the components. Same reason Schaeffers uses moly. Secondarily the FM and anti- oxidation capability.
Yes, I do not think that the heavy use of moly (but not as heavy as Honda break-in oil) suggests that Red Line's base oil is inferior or otherwise not up to the job. [SPAZ!] Do you know of a base oil which will give good performance overall without the use of barrier anti-wear agents? [Confused] Besides, the trend has been in the last 2+ years to move TOWARDS the use of moly. Even the mass-market goo peddlers are getting into the act. So, why do these Walmart oils only use 50-80PPM in their formulations? I'm guessing cost. That might be a very cost-effective concentration ... but not necessarily the best performing. --- Bror Jace
If esters are so much better than PAO's why does Redline need so much moly in it?
Again, there is widespread confusion among how the base oil functions, what are Friction Modifiers, and what is an Anti-Wear/EP modifier? Ester make good Friction modifiers and mild Anti-Wear fluids, in addition to lowering pour point, and adding thermal stability to the base oil. You need a good barrier additive that acts as a heavy duty AW and EP agent, such as Boron, MoTDC, or SnTDC, to keep things turning when the hydrodynamic film fails, engine wise. High levlels of Boron, Phosphorus, and Sulfur additives are needed for gear lubes and greases. Each component in an oil has a specific purpose or set of purposes (as is the case for multifunctional base oils and additives). Edit: I think in the near future you will see some HD AW/EP additives made purely of esters, without organometallic compounds. There are already some AW/EP esters out there, but are very expensive. If they can raise the production level and lower costs through improved processing, the cost will come down. [ May 22, 2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
Esther and Molly like to hang around together and they're usually well lubricated and ready for action. Sometimes Ethyl is even involved.
Originally posted by 68redlines73: And what's all this talk about Ester? How did she get involved in all of this? Oops, never mind! [Big Grin]
And a ton of it! Phrased another way: If esters are so much better than PAO's why does Redline need so much moly in it?
That's part of what makes it good [Confused] [Eek!] [Bang Head] If esters are so good why not run pure oil...no additives! [Dummy!] Actually there may be advanced esters that could make that possible but if there is, we could not afford it.
Most Redline products are designed for racing. Moly is an effective friction reducer (among other things) and allows a few extra hp to be squeezed out of an engine. The ester base stock is for shear resistance and high temperature stability.
If you were to produce an oil without regard to the API starburst criterion, and it has to perform well under racing conditions, trial and error let Redline to their best formula. Now if they were Amsoil and pushed way high extended drains instead of racing, I doubt they would put that much moly in it. But who knows, maybe more of one ingredient like moly, and less of another is equal to a little of this and and little of that other customs blenders have in their oil. Maybe the end result is the all same with regard to performance. Leo
Not open for further replies.