Look what UPS brought today! More Ravenol!

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Pretty sure I never asked your preference on moly... this thread was started as a discussion about Ravenol DXG since AFAIK nobody else on the board has bought or used it yet. The only comment I made that may have been construed to be about moly was that NOTHING in a lubricating oil can eliminate a manufacturing defect such as the Hemi Tick. It was an engineering mistake to pair SADI cam cores with billet lifter wheels, and then stick MDS on it which allows the lifter to beat the snot out of the cam lobe. Some formulations may slow down and minimize that damage that is occurring, but the defective engineering/manufacturing issue still exists, and WILL fail at some point regardless of the lubricant. And it's quite humorous that you are now beating the Pennzoil drum for FCA when every other post has you bowing at the Redline throne...

Also, in my post you quoted, there is not a single question mark, so I'm not sure how you thought I was asking you questions...



Well said.
 
My mistake, someone asked about it, but good to see you are already being grouped hugged on it. Higher moly levels do produce less friction but barely, the real benefit comes from how much quicker it works, I will have to go back and see who asked about moly.
 
What is interesting about this DXG is that it does use moly which might be moly dtc but also tungsten. A interesting combination.
 
It states in Ravenol's info that it is tri-nuclear moly, and tungsten.

Originally Posted by Ravenol
RAVENOL DXG SAE 5W-30 is a PAO (Polyalphaolefin) based, fully synthetic low friction motor oil with especially USVO® and proven CleanSynto® technology for passenger car petrol engines with and without turbo-charging and direct injection.

For the developement of RAVENOL DXG SAE 5W-30 the proven formulation of tri-nuclear molybdenum, tungsten and OFM (Organic Friction Modifiers) was used. A highly polar Group V base oil was used in this formula, which has good compatibility with the PAO used.

RAVENOL DXG SAE 5W-30 therefore minimises friction, wear and tear and fuel consumption, and delivers excellent cold start performance.
With its new formulation, RAVENOL DXG SAE 5W-30 provides a safe layer of lubrication even at very high operating temperatures and protects from corrosion and loss of oil through oxidation or coking. The excellent cold start behavior ensures optimum lubrication safety during the cold running phase.
By significantly reducing fuel consumption, RAVENOL DXG SAE 5W-30 helps to protect the environment by reducing emissions.
RAVENOL DXG SAE 5W-30 helps to avoid low speed pre-ignition LSPI (Low Speed ​​Pre-ignition). This can help avoid engine damage.
Extended oil change intervals according to the manufacturer's instructions.
 
Maybe if I send a sample of this to MolaKule he would be willing to do some of the "Special" lab tests to see if we can determine what's in it that a $30 VOA will never tell us...

Mola, what do you think?
 
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Maybe if I send a sample of this to MolaKule he would be willing to do some of the "Special" lab tests to see if we can determine what's in it that a $30 VOA will never tell us...

Mola, what do you think?




That would be very interesting to see.
 
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
And it's quite humorous that you are now beating the Pennzoil drum for FCA when every other post has you bowing at the Redline throne...



That is an ignorant post, you seam hung up on brand. The particular FORMULA I was discussing had a high 260ppm moly, that happens to carry the Pennzoil name. The "formula" that is working in these hemi's is very specific, two group 4/5 mixed base oils, very high moly, zinc and phos and other good stuff. The name is irrelevant, the formula is what has worked in these vehicles. When you can't make a point, attack the person, it is called ad hominem and when people resort to it, that usually means they concede the point. Next time address the formula if you want I should respond, attack me I have nothing further, but I'm sure you will get a circle hug on it.
 
Originally Posted by burla
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
And it's quite humorous that you are now beating the Pennzoil drum for FCA when every other post has you bowing at the Redline throne...



That is an ignorant post, you seam hung up on brand. The particular FORMULA I was discussing had a high 260ppm moly, that happens to carry the Pennzoil name. The "formula" that is working in these hemi's is very specific, two group 4/5 mixed base oils, very high moly, zinc and phos and other good stuff. The name is irrelevant, the formula is what has worked in these vehicles. When you can't make a point, attack the person, it is called ad hominem and when people resort to it, that usually means they concede the point. Next time address the formula if you want I should respond, attack me I have nothing further, but I'm sure you will get a circle hug on it.



Which form of moly burla?
 
burla, I don't care that you like Redline. I DO like Pennzoil, and I've never been shy about sharing that. But, I've also got an open mind and curiosity about finding better things, just because I can... with "better" being determined by what makes sense to me. What you quoted from me wasn't an attack; don't get butthurt- it's just that you've been "Redline Redline Redline rah rah rah" for the 11 months you've been on this board, and when people here finally make valid points refuting your "proof" about curing the Hemi Tick, then you jump on with Team Yellow and say "Well Pennzoil and FCA came up with this fix, so it must be moly... and by proxy that means the Redline works the same way."

I ain't mad at ya, I'm not attacking you, and the only circle hug I get is the one I give myself when my wife is not in the mood. Since you're claiming to be looking for additional oils that help the Hemi Tick, I would have expected you to embrace this thread a little more. Stevie's gonna be Stevie and beat the Amsoil drum, and that's OK too... cuz for the most part he's still interested in comparing the two empirically rather than running a test where you change multiple variables (oil brand, viscosity, formula, etc) at the same time and calling it scientific. That doesn't quite satisfy the reality of statistical analysis of proving the answer is, or is not, any one thing. Good luck on your propaganda trail though. Peace
 
Just out of curiosity, did you happen to see where some random guy from Bob' with 3,000 posts just killed his tick with the formula? At least Overkill had the sense to say that is great as pose more questions. I'm not saying it fixes hemi tick, I am saying it is possible. If the tick is gone, and the wear numbers become 3 times less, that lends some credence to the fact that formula is providing adequate lubrication to that issue. So how many random guys from Bob's would it take for you to get on board? 10, 100, 1000? The reason why the many guys are on board is for 5 plus years week in week out another tick is killed, and when these long term uoa's are coming back as clean as they are coming back, considering how bad they were at first, it is very possible it is a good choice for lubrication for that application. And what we get when we bring the info here is the circle crowd yelling don't believe the uoa's. lol. Take a closer look at those uoa's, they tell the story, bad hemi tick wear at first giving way to way under universal averages.

And Ravenol gives a unique opportunity to see if that product can possibly relieve ticks as well. Because the more we can narrow down what it is that is killing the ticks the better for us. One thing for sure, group 3 oils have not been the answer as much as that seam implausible. So if we can get a pao based oil kill some ticks maybe we can get off it being the esters or the moly, and if pao oils fail to kill ticks then we can probably take pao off the list of what is killing ticks. To the circle crowd none of you could care less, but when you are the guy with the tick just like the guy from bob's that just killed his tick, this is a huge lubrication issue and an incredible burden lifted when your engine is no longer ticking. The video's in the other members thread tell the story, that tick is no fun at all to live with. You fellas can keep making this about me all you want, I except nothing less. But hey, yesterday I found out that I helped someone, so put that in ya pipe and smoke it.
 
Well that didn't last long. People here are trying to straighten out this thread but in the end you insert personal name calling and insults.

Every thread you participate in here ends up the same.
 
Making it about me again, and not the science, standard. A real good place to go would be concentrating on the differences between pao and group 3, and maybe even add esters. Since the thread is about an oil that isn't your standard group 3 walmart stuff, as why- think polarity, density, branch chained, hot and cold properties. Since people ask about why and toss around a bunch of why this why that, there ya go. Maybe some of these properties will help your application.
 
I wonder how come you didn't say anything when Stevie took this thread in the direction of other oils/? Like the 4rth post, lol. Excuse me for doing exatcly what he did only posting an oil with better numbers then the oil he posted. I'll be the bad guy whatever, but yaw'll carry water for a brand and yaw'll should knock it off.
 
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
The only comment I made that may have been construed to be about moly was that NOTHING in a lubricating oil can eliminate a manufacturing defect such as the Hemi Tick. It was an engineering mistake to pair SADI cam cores with billet lifter wheels, and then stick MDS on it which allows the lifter to beat the snot out of the cam lobe. Some formulations may slow down and minimize that damage that is occurring, but the defective engineering/manufacturing issue still exists, and WILL fail at some point regardless of the lubricant.


I think it is important to the note that I've never heard of a 6.4L having the same issues, despite apparently still having a SADI core camshaft, the same lifters, same MDS system and probably higher valve spring pressures
21.gif
I've asked at my dealer and they've never done cam and lifters on a 6.4L, period, nor have they heard of the same failure in that engine. They've done 5.7's however.

It would seem that the difference is either the camshaft or the 0w-40, as those are the only two main differences other than valve spring pressure, which if anything, would be higher on the 6.4L.
 
Originally Posted by BigShug681
I believe amsoil is only about 200ppm not much more if at all. What I'm getting at is anything over that is basically being wasted from my understanding. I believe someone once stated that only about 80-100ppm of moly is actually being worked in the oil the rest just sits around and only accomplished making the oil much more expensive. Maybe I misunderstood I'm not sure just more looking for if that's the correct train of thought or not lol

At higher quantities, moly joins in in AW, rather than just the friction modification of lower levels.
 
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by BigShug681
I believe amsoil is only about 200ppm not much more if at all. What I'm getting at is anything over that is basically being wasted from my understanding. I believe someone once stated that only about 80-100ppm of moly is actually being worked in the oil the rest just sits around and only accomplished making the oil much more expensive. Maybe I misunderstood I'm not sure just more looking for if that's the correct train of thought or not lol

At higher quantities, moly joins in in AW, rather than just the friction modification of lower levels.

What's AW? Sorry
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I think it is important to the note that I've never heard of a 6.4L having the same issues, despite apparently still having a SADI core camshaft, the same lifters, same MDS system and probably higher valve spring pressures
21.gif
I've asked at my dealer and they've never done cam and lifters on a 6.4L, period, nor have they heard of the same failure in that engine. They've done 5.7's however.

It would seem that the difference is either the camshaft or the 0w-40, as those are the only two main differences other than valve spring pressure, which if anything, would be higher on the 6.4L.


Overkill, I agree, there MAY be other things afoot between the 6.4 and 5.7. However, not ever having ordered an SADI core cam, I would still think there would be the differences between induction hardening and through hardening like there are on billet cores. This may be the difference. The other big difference would be in the shape of the ramps... the ramps may be much more "roller-friendly" than the MDS lobes. Spring pressures may also be significantly different. There are a lot of things in play when it comes to a cam design that lives, and one that doesn't. I agree there is something still being missed.
 
The individual that had tried 0w40 and 10w40 Redline among many other oils, trying to get his tick, has the 6.4. There have been a few 6.4 with tick, and hemi tick pre dates mds. It has been something going on for many decades. If there is an easy mechanical fix, none of the ram guys or hemi guys know it that I've heard of. Our hope is still that there is an answer as such so we can forget about oil all together. The conversation came up today where Ravenol apparently has a redline clone esters and pao, but not sure of the moly level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SubieRubyRoo
  • Locked
Poll time - which Ravenol to use from stash?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Olas
SubieRubyRoo
  • Locked
More Ravenol USVO VOA coming! (SFE 5W20)
Replies
16
Views
4K
kstanf150
Back
Top