No one is talking about SP on packaging. This is a VOA thread.
Last edited:
Red Line Euro 5w40 VOA
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
It's not just the presence of Mg but also the amount of Z/P. I would guess M1 FS 5w30. As you can see per their performance claims the product the "engine test requirements of SP". So their Z/P levels are too high to meet the formulation requirements of SP but it meets the performance claims.
LINK
Edit: M1 FS 5w30. As you can see the Phosphorus is too high (>800 ppm). Yes they are using a lot of Mg and Ca as well.
Last edited:
Okay, then we've talked past each other or I've misunderstood you = my fault. So Red Line produces the old and new formulation (SN/SP) at the same time? That's very good news, because I prefer the old one. I wasn't aware that this is possible. Hopefully I'll find it somewhere on the market.
@BMWTurboDzl I was only talking about Mg in relation to LSPI. I'm not talking about phosphorus at all. I am sufficiently familiar with LSPI and the fundamental correlations. I was interested in a full SAPS oil with API SP performance and w/o Mg, which you mentioned exists. I doubt it and haven't seen a counterexample so far.
At the risk of aggravating @buster. Red Line sells a Euro Series 5w40 and a "euro" 5w40. The VOA posted does look like their SN (A3/B4) formula. I wonder if there's a disconnect between the lab and the individual who sent in the VOA. Perhaps the PDS hasn't been updated. Reaching out to Redline may be helpful.
EURO SERIES 5w40
"EURO" 5w40
You're probably correct. An other thing that I didn't think of is that blenders probably are not incentivized to sell a product with an additive package that differs from the current API requirements. I just took at look at VOA of M1 FS 5w40 and it's essentially the same as the FS 5w30.
This are the additives of the Euro Series 5W-40 from the beginning of 2022 with API SN labeling:
As you can see, the values match perfectly with this VOA here. The recent API SP formula is above my post and contains less boron and significantly more magnesium, among other things.
As you can see, the values match perfectly with this VOA here. The recent API SP formula is above my post and contains less boron and significantly more magnesium, among other things.
Longer drain intervals doesn’t equal better wear protection or performance. I change oil every 5k so using an oil designed to do 15-20k just means it's wasted on me and came at the expense of something else.
Last edited:
That’s awesome, but feelings and superstitions don’t discount actual data & proof. Me, I don’t feel like spending 300-400% additional time under the vehicles when there’s no downside to the reduced frequency.
It's not superstition. Again, longer drain intervals do not equal better wear protection or performance. You picked one simple thing, TBN to talk about. That's not all that matters.
Sure sounds like it without data or evidence. Why is it not superstition?
Because oils are designed differently based on their purpose. Race oils are not designed for long change intervals. If it were that simple there wouldn’t be multiple versions of oils. Mobile would simply have their one product. TBN in an oil is Total Base Number and used to fight acidity in an oil. It’s not how great it is at lubricating. It could be mediocre at best and simply last a long time. Great. It’s a balance of variables to achieve an outcome. I don’t get you guys constantly saying “data” and “evidence”. The fact there’s multiple products sitting on a shelf should suffice. If people can’t wrap their heads around there being different oils designed for different missions then you won’t understand the data and evidence that’s all around you in plain sight. Supertech 20k oil can claim to last longer but what’s its NOAK compared to Red line? What’s its lubricity? How do the additive packages compare? NASCAR would be running your supertech if mileage claims were what mattered.Sure sounds like it without data or evidence. Why is it not superstition?
Bit shocked this needs to be explained to be honest.
Last edited:
The superstition was you choosing to change an oil at 5k that may easily go 20k miles with absolutely no downsides. Nobody said longer drain intervals equal “better” wear protection; but the more important thing is you can’t blindly say longer drain intervals mean worse protection or performance. However, it can mean reduced costs per mile, less resources consumed, and less waste to deal with. That has been proven, many times.
Must be why on the bottles they say if driven hard to change it at half the interval lol. I change it at 5k because it's easy to remember when and people who have designed and built the engines support that. I don't know a single one that's ever said go the 20k. The oil still gets contaminants no matter how good it isThe superstition was you choosing to change an oil at 5k that may easily go 20k miles with absolutely no downsides. Nobody said longer drain intervals equal “better” wear protection; but the more important thing is you can’t blindly say longer drain intervals mean worse protection or performance. However, it can mean reduced costs per mile, less resources consumed, and less waste to deal with. That has been proven, many times.
