It says "suitable for" or "Recommended for", which means that from their perspective, it's appropriate to recommend for those applications. This does not mean that it is approved or would meet the performance requirements if officially tested.
Think about that statement for a moment. Their cheaper oil, the Redline Professional series, is officially approved, but their significantly more expensive oil, the old white bottle Performance series, would be "prohibitively expensive" to approve. Take all the time you need.
Yes, it's common knowledge on here that the white bottle oil is a predominantly PAO-based product with a good slug of POE in it.
Nope. In Germany the oil must be at least 75% Group IV/V to be labelled synthetic (vollsynthetisches). The rest of the world, that rule doesn't apply. Even then, there can be a percentage of Group III or Group II in the blend.
Yet the other oils managed to make their way through the "prohibitively expensive" approval processes
Yes, Redline white bottle has a very low Noack, but then so does M1 0w-40 (8.8%), Ravenol SSL 0w-40 (8.5%) and Ravenol's Euro 5w-30, which has ALL the actual OEM approvals and a Noack of 6.4%.Well, guess we can shut the board down now since you've solved it.
I think you're going a little overboard. What does it mean when it's a better oil? How much longer will the engine last? It's usually not engine failure that causes you to get rid of a car. Usually other more expensive items go like the transmission or the car falls apart, rust etc and it has nothing to do with what oil you use.
There was a debate?
Not to belabor the issue, but you really have no idea how much it costs an oil company to submit to the MB 229.5 process, do you? I have heard that the MB standards process was started by Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway, and so there may be the possibility that the whole process is a racket to squeeze out competition from smaller companies. If that is the case, if it is really expensive, than you are paying the big guys just to be on the MB list, and the those manufacturers cut corners to make up the difference. You cannot definitely say, about Red Line,It says "suitable for" or "Recommended for", which means that from their perspective, it's appropriate to recommend for those applications. This does not mean that it is approved or would meet the performance requirements if officially tested.
Think about that statement for a moment. Their cheaper oil, the Redline Professional series, is officially approved, but their significantly more expensive oil, the old white bottle Performance series, would be "prohibitively expensive" to approve. Take all the time you need.
The old white bottle oil has absolutely no manufacturer approvals, which is fine, it's an oil blended in a manner that would prevent it from obtaining them, having very high levels of certain additives, but that's the reason, not that the approvals are expensive. CP has lots of money, if it would aide in increasing sales of the white bottle product, they'd have no problem pursuing them. It's a formula that hasn't changed in probably several decades at this point and isn't compliant with modern emissions standards and additive limits, that's why it isn't approved.
Yes, it's common knowledge on here that the white bottle oil is a predominantly PAO-based product with a good slug of POE in it.
Nope. In Germany the oil must be at least 75% Group IV/V to be labelled synthetic (vollsynthetisches). The rest of the world, that rule doesn't apply. Even then, there can be a percentage of Group III or Group II in the blend.
Yet the other oils managed to make their way through the "prohibitively expensive" approval processes
Well, guess we can shut the board down now since you've solved it.
So let me get this straight, a small company that can't afford to submit an oil for approval yet charges twice as much as a large oil company with approval? So you're basically saying they're either too cheap to pay for approval or it doesn't meet spec? They should cough up the buck like everyone else.
I think you missed the point. The manufacturer of the oil is too cheap to pay for approval yet wants double what others are charging. It would be nice to know that I don't just have to take their word for it, it's been approved by the car manufacturer.
I'm 100% sure you don't.
You do know that Redline is owned by Conoco-Phillips right? One of the largest oil companies in the world. The point that they sell a cheaper product that carries the official approval seems to have flown right over your head, I implore you to sit on that a bit more.
Conoco-Phillips is a publicly traded company. Their NET revenue for 2019 was $7.189 BILLION dollars, I'm pretty sure that if they can afford to approve the cheap black bottle product, they could do the white bottle one if it can pass the testing.
No, it's not, because >15% of the product is comprised of the additive package and VII polymers.
It doesn't. It states it is RECOMMENDED FOR MB229.5, show me specifically where it states that it is approved. It doesn't, because it isn't. There's absolutely nothing preventing a blender that chooses not to pursue a certification from recommending a product for applications that call for that certification.
I think you took what Dave said to you totally out of context or simply didn't understand what he was saying. Based on the exchange in this thread, I'd wager either are equally likely.
It indicates a lower spread, which is the same reason Ravenol 5w-30, which is formally approved and less expensive than Redline, has a Noack of 6.4%. Getting wound-up over 2% on the Noack test when the strictest industry limit is 10% is ridiculous.
Good point. There really is no way to know if I'm being ripped off. I'm just looking for the best quality 5W-30.
All good points. Do you know where I can buy the Ravenol RSP 5W-30 in America? I just can't seem to find a supplier, even on the Ravenol USA website. The SSL is 0W-40 and I want 5W-30. The Ravenol HCL comes in 5W0-30, but it's NOACK is 9.3 (compared to Red Line's 6).
Nothing flew over my head, that's my point exactly. Red Line's cheaper product (Pro Series) may have the official MB 229.5 approval, but is an inferior product to the non-approved High Performance Series. They took a MB 229.5 oil, improved it, and didn't bother to summit it to MB for approval due to the added expense.
To what end? What's the evidence that using the best quality oil will actually make your car last longer? What good is having an engine in perfect shape if the rest of the car falls apart?
Yeah, you're too fast.
RSP? I was referring to the VMP oil, which is a mid-SAPS Euro 5w-30 with the appropriate HTHS:
www.ravenol.de
www.ravenol.de
www.ravenol.de
www.ravenolamerica.com
www.ravenolamerica.com
Totally bogus.
Do you have documentation to support either part of this statement? No advertising or "My cousin's girlfriend's dog said so".
