Red Line 5W50, 614 Miles, 2007 Ford GT500

[SIXSPEED]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
OP_ I'd talk to Dave, you MAY be able to safely go 1 step down in viscosity to a 40 with the RL (true synthetic) and pick up some HP - as long as you are not aggressively tracking this car and killing the oil temps. I would also stick with ONE oil type if its satisfactory - not good to be flip flopping chemistrys as this can "loose the hounds of Hades", as one package supersedes the other and cause odd shedding/wear.

I did communicate with Dave on this and their 5W50 is what's recommended by Red Line for this motor, but he didn't see any issue with stepping down a grade. I do believe the 5.9 HTHS viscosity of the RL 5W50 is on the thick side for a 50 grade. I have thought about using their 5W40, but decided to use an API approved oil instead ... at least until the power train warranty expires. I agree, I should just stick with what works, but I guess I'm still searching; I am hoping that M1 5W50 will be that oil. Dave indicated RL is compatible with other oil types and that switching between RL and other types will not be a problem.

 

[d00df00d]

I found a link to one of the (many) reposts of the quote I was looking for. It's from Roy, not Dave, at Red Line (sorry for that mistake).

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1382598/


Quote:
Unfortunately, oil analysis is not very good at distinguishing wear between different formulations. Emission spectroscopy has a particle size limit of 3 to 5 microns, which means that particles larger will not be detected. Unfortunately, most serious wear issues generate wear particles in the range of 5 - 15 microns. Oil analysis only measures about 15-20% of the particles in the oil, and changing form one formulation to another is likely to change the particle size profile. Usually formulations with more antiwear additive will more aggressively react with the metal surface and when rubbing occurs will produce smaller particles. Generally, more antiwear additives will give greater iron spectrochemical numbers, even though the total iron can be lower. There are other techniques such as ferrography, which looks at the wear particles under a microscope, but now we are talking about analysis many times more expensive than spectrochemical analysis. The oils with the better spectrochemical numbers will be much less chemically active on the metal surface, so they will be less able to handle more severe loads. There is always a trade-off between chemical wear and adhesive wear. Chemical wear is the very small particles and soluble metals which is identified in the spectrochemical analysis, while adhesive wear is many orders of magnitude greater than the chemical wear, but much is not identified in spectrochemical analysis. But if you were using spectrochemical analysis as a maintenance tool and started seeing a deviation over the baseline, then you would know something was wrong.

It is very difficult for an individual to be able to look at numbers which will conclusively determine the best formulation, you simply have to rely on the reputation of the marketer and whether you trust the marketer's technical expertise. With most of our formulations, we rely on major additive manufacturers to do the basic API sequence testing to determine criteria such as antiwear, dispersancy, cleanliness, etc. All the oil companies rely on the additive manufacturers to do the engine test work. We will take their basic package and add additional antiwear, friction modifiers, oxidation inhibitors or whatever can be safely modified to provide superior performance. Some of the bench tests such as 4-Ball can be useful, but a blind adherance to optimize with one single test will result a less-than-optimum performing lubricant. There are always trade-offs in engine oils, and we try to enhance antiwear and friction reduction at higher temperatures and loads, while trying to maintain performance at lower and normal loads and temperatures.

 

[SIXSPEED]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: SIXSPEED

I wonder where the lead would come from if not the bearings.


Could even be from the oil.

Same reason we sometimes see copper in Modular UOA's, even there there isn't any in the engine.

VOA reports I've seen of the RL 5W50 show no Lead.

 

[bluesubie]

dOOdfOOd, has your answer IMO. Read the comment by Terry in his link if you haven't already. Did you contact Dave after the uoa?

-Dennis

 

[SIXSPEED]

Originally Posted By: dtt004
Originally Posted By: pzev
Gotcha, thanks for the info.

So I wonder what the lead is from?


I am 99% sure that the lead is from your main bearings that support the crankshaft. Reason being is that, I believe the engine is a high performance derivative of the base engine. Regardless, it should be using lead-copper bearings. We use lead-copper bearings in some of the engines we build; others have aluminum bearings.

You're right. I came across an article in the August 2011 issue of 5.0 Mustang that provides an in-depth look at the 2012 Boss 302 engine that says the following:

"Coyotes, like the 4.6 and 5.4 modulars, use a relatively hard aluminum bearing. They are durable, but for the increased loads in the Boss 302, scuff resistance is key, so more compliant copper-lead bearings were used. In fact, these are the main and rod bearings from the 5.4-liter in the Shelby GT500, so no engineering was required to reinvent the wheel."

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SIXSPEED
Originally Posted By: dtt004
Originally Posted By: pzev
Gotcha, thanks for the info.

So I wonder what the lead is from?


I am 99% sure that the lead is from your main bearings that support the crankshaft. Reason being is that, I believe the engine is a high performance derivative of the base engine. Regardless, it should be using lead-copper bearings. We use lead-copper bearings in some of the engines we build; others have aluminum bearings.

You're right. I came across an article in the August 2011 issue of 5.0 Mustang that provides an in-depth look at the 2012 Boss 302 engine that says the following:

"Coyotes, like the 4.6 and 5.4 modulars, use a relatively hard aluminum bearing. They are durable, but for the increased loads in the Boss 302, scuff resistance is key, so more compliant copper-lead bearings were used. In fact, these are the main and rod bearings from the 5.4-liter in the Shelby GT500, so no engineering was required to reinvent the wheel."


That is excellent information! And good to know that they differ in this regard from the "regular" Modular engines, which use the bi-metal bearings.

 

[Steve S]

Reading about the use of lead copper bearings due to increased loads tells me the 5w-50 oil would be the oil of choice. That and common sense. especially if the car is drives as designed on occasion. As a car used for driving to the mall though,,,, There was a new GT in the dealer when I went to buy my daughter a Focus and with the check book in hand it was tempting to buy one wow! they are nice cars. Hope you are enjoying it!!

 

[jkhawaii]

send virgin sample from the bottle, some if not all is already in the oil I bet. from past use of redline I remember a lot of the "contaminants" were already in the oil right out of the bottle

 

[BobFout]

Originally Posted By: jkhawaii
send virgin sample from the bottle, some if not all is already in the oil I bet. from past use of redline I remember a lot of the "contaminants" were already in the oil right out of the bottle


While it's not the 5w40 flavor, I have a recent 0w40 UOA here:

 

[SIXSPEED]

Originally Posted By: jkhawaii
send virgin sample from the bottle, some if not all is already in the oil I bet. from past use of redline I remember a lot of the "contaminants" were already in the oil right out of the bottle

While I didn't have a VOA done on my oil, I have seen VOAs from two different samples of Red Line 5W50 and neither showed any Lead nor any other metal contamination.

 

[jkhawaii]

silicon was one that Blackstone always flagged with redline but as you can see from the VOA there is 27ppm silicon in it already. there was some iron, lead in the sample I sent a while back but it was nothing major and could be an error

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: SIXSPEED
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
OP_ I'd talk to Dave, you MAY be able to safely go 1 step down in viscosity to a 40 with the RL (true synthetic) and pick up some HP - as long as you are not aggressively tracking this car and killing the oil temps. I would also stick with ONE oil type if its satisfactory - not good to be flip flopping chemistrys as this can "loose the hounds of Hades", as one package supersedes the other and cause odd shedding/wear.

I did communicate with Dave on this and their 5W50 is what's recommended by Red Line for this motor, but he didn't see any issue with stepping down a grade. I do believe the 5.9 HTHS viscosity of the RL 5W50 is on the thick side for a 50 grade. I have thought about using their 5W40, but decided to use an API approved oil instead ... at least until the power train warranty expires. I agree, I should just stick with what works, but I guess I'm still searching; I am hoping that M1 5W50 will be that oil. Dave indicated RL is compatible with other oil types and that switching between RL and other types will not be a problem.


I think RL 5W-40 or 0W-40 would be a better match for the engine. The 5W-40's HTHS vis will still be a good bit higher than Motorcraft 5W-50's, and the 0W-40's will probably be right on par. RL 5W-50 HTHS is higher than TWS 10W-60's!

 

[SIXSPEED]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT

I think RL 5W-40 or 0W-40 would be a better match for the engine. The 5W-40's HTHS vis will still be a good bit higher than Motorcraft 5W-50's, and the 0W-40's will probably be right on par. RL 5W-50 HTHS is higher than TWS 10W-60's!

I agree that Red Line's 5.9 HTHS is higher than necessary. I'm no longer running this oil.