Opinions on redline 5w20...

[Ben99GT]

IMHO, If you want to stay with a thinner oil more in line with Honda's factory HTHS specs (a true 20 weight), go with the 0W-20. If you want to try an oil that blurs the line between a 5W-20 and 5w30, go with the 5W-20.

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
The 5w20 will be more shear-resistant than the 0w20 if you drive hard. The 0w20 will give better fuel economy, but only ~1%, so you would have a hard time telling the difference.


FWIW, Red Line 0W-20 has no viscosity index improvers whatsoever, it's about as shear resistant as a motor oil gets.

 

[A_Harman]

Yes, the Red Line 5w20 is all but a 30. It's only a couple of percent in KV100 away from being a 30-weight. It definitely has the HTHS of a 30.

 

[CATERHAM]

And it is the HTHS vis that counts, and at 3.3cP it'a mid-grade 30wt, heavier than most 30wt's. It just goes to show that the SAE grade on a bottle is more about marketing than reality.
What's disappointing about RL's 5W-20 is it's low VI of 145; IMO that makes it a poor synthetic value. If you're going to spring for a syn' oil you want a VI of at least 160 otherwise there are some excellent dino's to choose from at s fraction of the price.

On the other hand, RL's more modern 0W-20 is one of their best products and most expensive to formulate according to RL's Dave Granquist (along with their 0w30 and 0W-40 grades).
It achieves it's 166 VI without the aid of VII's and although it is marketed for hybrid applications, with it's HTHS vis of 2.7+ (a friend who has used it suspects it's closer to 3) it's really a 20wt race oil in the same league as Motul 300V 0W-20 and Fuchs Titan GT-1 0W-20 but at a more affordable cost.

 

[mattd]

Caterham, that makes me want to use the 0w20. I talked to dave a bit, and he said that the mileage difference would be negligible between the 0w20 and 5w20. However, it seems that the 5w20 would provide more wear protection based on the viscosity @ 100C and HTHS. Is it safe to assume this?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: mattd
Caterham, that makes me want to use the 0w20. I talked to dave a bit, and he said that the mileage difference would be negligible between the 0w20 and 5w20. However, it seems that the 5w20 would provide more wear protection based on the viscosity @ 100C and HTHS. Is it safe to assume this?


I often wondered why Dave prefers the 5W20 to the 0W20. He told my buddy who asked about using Red Line 0W20 vs. Red Line 5W20, that unless he lived in some of the coldest parts of the world the 5W20 would be better in his late model Ford application. Bitog teachings lead me to believe their 0W20 would be better in an application calling for a 20 grade oil vs. their 5W20. At start up and transition to operating temps their 0W20 shines. Even at operating temps I see no reason why it won't protect as well as their 5W20 in an engine calling for a 20 grade oil.

 

[jaj]

Interesting perspective. I thought the same way until Castrol released their SLX Professional 5w-20 in Australia. It's "the oil" for the new Ford Coyote 5.0 liter engine that Ford markets in Aus as a supercharged "Boss 335" model. What's remarkable about the SLX is that it's got a higher HTHS than Redline 5w-20 - it's 3.5 cP.

Ford in North America says that the Coyote engine was a clean-sheet design built for 5w-20. For the one over-stressed application in North America, the Boss 302, they change the oil spec to 5w-50. So why did they work with Castrol to develop a high HTHS 5w-20 for Australia?

My conclusion is that a 5w-20 flows like a 5w-20 regardless of the HTHS. The SLX 5w-20 delivers all the usual 5w-20 benefits like better cold starting, better fuel economy and compatibility with the engine's baseline internals even as it also delivers the wear protection of an xW-40 or xW-50.

It kind of makes a case for Redline or Motul 300V in 5w-20 viscosity. Both have HTHS ratings just below 3.5.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And it is the HTHS vis that counts, and at 3.3cP it'a mid-grade 30wt, heavier than most 30wt's. It just goes to show that the SAE grade on a bottle is more about marketing than reality.
What's disappointing about RL's 5W-20 is it's low VI of 145; IMO that makes it a poor synthetic value. If you're going to spring for a syn' oil you want a VI of at least 160 otherwise there are some excellent dino's to choose from at s fraction of the price.

On the other hand, RL's more modern 0W-20 is one of their best products and most expensive to formulate according to RL's Dave Granquist (along with their 0w30 and 0W-40 grades).
It achieves it's 166 VI without the aid of VII's and although it is marketed for hybrid applications, with it's HTHS vis of 2.7+ (a friend who has used it suspects it's closer to 3) it's really a 20wt race oil in the same league as Motul 300V 0W-20 and Fuchs Titan GT-1 0W-20 but at a more affordable cost.

 

[CATERHAM]

The Castrol SLX 5W-20 came up on Ozzie post and I questioned the HTHS vis of 3.5cP which I believe is simply not true.
My point then was that it is a chemical impossibility to make a HTHS 3.5cP oil without the KV100 spec' being higher than 9.3cSt and is therefore not a 20wt oil but a 30wt.

HTHS viscosity is the true measure of how thick or thin an oil is at operating temp's and therefore trumps the KV100 spec'. The following post explains why in more detail:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/2001169/

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: jaj
Ford in North America says that the Coyote engine was a clean-sheet design built for 5w-20. For the one over-stressed application in North America, the Boss 302, they change the oil spec to 5w-50. So why did they work with Castrol to develop a high HTHS 5w-20 for Australia?


For a higher HP engine in a hot climate, a higher HTHS viscosity just makes sense.

 

[jaj]

Sorry - I wasn't very clear. I completely agree that "it's all about HTHS" when it comes to wear control.

What I was getting at is that the bulk viscosity of the oil is important for things like cold flow and fuel economy. Having a combination of high HTHS and low bulk viscosity is kind of magical - the best of both worlds.

Since Redline already makes a 3.3 cP 5w-20, it's reasonable that a company with the technical resources of Castrol can hit 3.5 without breaking a sweat. With an OEM deal with Ford, they probably move enough volume to ensure that they get their investment back fairly quickly.



Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The Castrol SLX 5W-20 came up on Ozzie post and I questioned the HTHS vis of 3.5cP which I believe is simply not true.
My point then was that it is a chemical impossibility to make a HTHS 3.5cP oil without the KV100 spec' being higher than 9.3cSt and is therefore not a 20wt oil but a 30wt.

HTHS viscosity is the true measure of how thick or thin an oil is at operating temp's and therefore trumps the KV100 spec'. The following post explains why in more detail:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/2001169/

 

[A_Harman]

I have a hard time believing that an Xw20 can have HTHS of 3.5 or higher. Can you post a link to a spec sheet for SLX Professional 5w20 that shows it? Castrol's spec sheets in North America don't usually show such good information.

 

[mattd]

I wish i could find some V6 honda used oil analysis with Red Line 0w20 and 5w20 back to back and make up my mind...i need to order the oil this week

Or anyone with first hand experience with this application would be nice too

 

[jaj]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I have a hard time believing that an Xw20 can have HTHS of 3.5 or higher. Can you post a link to a spec sheet for SLX Professional 5w20 that shows it? Castrol's spec sheets in North America don't usually show such good information.


I have the link to the Castrol product datasheet, but it's dead. The same product now has a new datasheet saying HTHS of 2.7 cP. Sigh. I guess we're stuck with Redline or Motul to get that mix of high HTHS and low bulk viscosity.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: mattd
Caterham, that makes me want to use the 0w20. I talked to dave a bit, and he said that the mileage difference would be negligible between the 0w20 and 5w20. However, it seems that the 5w20 would provide more wear protection based on the viscosity @ 100C and HTHS. Is it safe to assume this?

I know Dave pushes their 5W-20; call me cynical but I think the reason is the much higher profit margin on that oil vs their superior and more expensive to formulate 0W-20.
You can ignore that old myth that thicker oil provides more protection than a thinner oil; it of course is not true.
The Red Line 0W-20 is already heavier than the spec' 0W-20 and 5W-20 oils for Honda and the Red Line 0W-20 is impervious to shear.
In fact because it is heavier than required would be a reason NOT to go with Red Line 0W-20 so being too thin is not a issue.
The following is a Red Line 0W-20 on Buster's Mazda 3:

[URed Line]https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/redline-0w20-10-500-miles-2007-mazda-3.129804/[/URed Line]

If the relative high cost of Red Line 0W-20 doesn't put you off, then use it with confidence.

 

[mattd]

according to Red Line's website, its only 50 cents more per quart than the 5w20. I am only a little hesitant about the 0w20 because the last 0w20 i tried was castrol edge, and my car drank it like water. I drained it early because it was using it about 1 qt/1000 miles. I'm not sure if the Red Line 0w20 would behave the same.

 

[mattd]

went with 5w20. Price, availability were two main reasons. other was a feel a little more comfortable with a thicker oil. we will see how fuel economy is. thx

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
I know Dave pushes their 5W-20; call me cynical but I think the reason is the much higher profit margin on that oil vs their superior and more expensive to formulate 0W-20.


I think Dave pushes it because he sees 5W-20 as a more suitable "hard use" oil than 0W-20, which is what Red Line is really all about.

For most V8s give me the 5W-20 any day. I'd MUCH rather a 3.3 HTHS oil when I'm going WOT on a 100 degree day with 7000 lbs hooked up to the truck, which is way more common for me than a sub-zero cold start. My truck doesn't even have a factory oil cooler.

 

[CATERHAM]

What you're saying is you prefer a shear stable, VII free 30wt oil which is what Red Line 5W-20 is...no argument there. Although I'm sure you'd get the same high temp' protection with Red Line's 0w30 and with it's 183 VI much better start-up flow properties. An all round better oil.

Unfortunately most people who buy Red Line 5W-20 don't look past the 5W-20 label on the bottle and think they're getting a light oil for a typically light (2.6 HTHS viscosity) application and of course they are not.

I do know Dave does tends to push in his gentle way their 5W-20; "the 5W-20 should be fine ..... the 0W-20 shouldn't be necessary; not cold enough" etc.
He even steered me to it a couple years ago. He even steered me towards their 10w30 in place of their 5w30 and we both know Red Line's 5w30 renders their 10w30 obsolete but I'm sure is cheaper to make.
In another conversation with Dave I complained half heartedly about the higher price of their 0W-XX oils and his defensive rather telling reply was that they don't charge enough for the 0W-XX oils.
And Cameron Evens is on record pretty much saying the same; "they are our best oils to-date and most expensive to formulate" IIRC.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: mattd
according to Red Line's website, its only 50 cents more per quart than the 5w20. I am only a little hesitant about the 0w20 because the last 0w20 i tried was castrol edge, and my car drank it like water. I drained it early because it was using it about 1 qt/1000 miles. I'm not sure if the Red Line 0w20 would behave the same.

Red Line 0W-20 has nothing in common with the GP III based ultra high VI (220) Edge SM 0W-20. There is no question the Edge sheared a lot in service and being a 2.6 HTHS oil to start with, it likely dropped at least to 2.4cP if not lower.
So you couldn't of chosen a lightet oil if you tried.
Anyway, Castrol has changed the formulation of the GF-5 SN version of the Edge 0W-20 and it's VI has dropped from what was the highest to the lowest for a 0W-20 oil at only 161. It will be a thicker oil in service now but it is a disappointment to those that very much liked the light original SM formulation.

 

[Bruce T]

Caterham, nice catch. It's quite a change to SN/GF-5 Castrol Edge 0W-20 when the US Castrol website shows a viscosity at 40°C of 45.08 cSt. The VOA of the old SM/GF-4 oil tested much lower at 35.6 when spec was 38.62. Not so impressive for those cold starts now. Also, the published viscosity at 100°C dropped from 8.85 to 8.65. Ha, maybe the old stuff was shearing too much, so they used less PPD or VII to meet the new standards.

 

[CATERHAM]

Yeah, the new Castrol SN spec's (as limited as they are) was discussed on the following post:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/2234133/
On balance, they're pretty mediocre.

Your observation about the KV100 drop from 8.85cSt (the highest of any HTHS 2.6cP oil) to 8.65cSt is indicative of a reduction in VII's and therefore a thicker overall oil.
Many BITOGer's incorrectly assumed (and still do) the high KV100 spec' meant it was a heavy oil when in reality it was likely the lightest SM oil you could buy. Just another example of why you cannot compare KV100 spec's of different oils without referencing their HTHS viscosities as well.

The current lightest oil on the market is the Toyota Brand 0W-20 with it's KV100 spec' of 8.8cSt and 214 VI.