Just wondering about this,as I ran the redline for this past winter,in the back of my mind,am I correct in assuming the Amsoil SSO would be a thinner oil then the redline?
Redline 0w30 thicker then Amsoil SSO 0w30?
- Thread starter DragRace
- Start date
- Status
The only significant viscosity difference between the two oils are their VI's.
SSO is 172 and RL is 183, therefore RL would be thinner at all start-up temperatures.
SSO is 172 and RL is 183, therefore RL would be thinner at all start-up temperatures.
So the MRV values for both of those oils are not that hot in a very cold climate it looks like. If I remember correctly, the MRV of RL 0w30 is something like 27,000?
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The only significant viscosity difference between the two oils are their VI's.
SSO is 172 and RL is 183, therefore RL would be thinner at all start-up temperatures.
Thanks Caterham.
The only significant viscosity difference between the two oils are their VI's.
SSO is 172 and RL is 183, therefore RL would be thinner at all start-up temperatures.
Thanks Caterham.
Originally Posted By: JeremyInMT
So the MRV values for both of those oils are not that hot in a very cold climate it looks like. If I remember correctly, the MRV of RL 0w30 is something like 27,000?
See this is what I was originally trying to ask,just didnt have my wording correct.
So the MRV values for both of those oils are not that hot in a very cold climate it looks like. If I remember correctly, the MRV of RL 0w30 is something like 27,000?
See this is what I was originally trying to ask,just didnt have my wording correct.
Originally Posted By: DragRace
Originally Posted By: JeremyInMT
So the MRV values for both of those oils are not that hot in a very cold climate it looks like. If I remember correctly, the MRV of RL 0w30 is something like 27,000?
See this is what I was originally trying to ask,just didnt have my wording correct.
Caterham was kind enough to teach me that the Mobil 1 0wXX are about the lowest there are. M1 0w30's MRV (at -40) is 13,250 which is downright amazing compared to what else I see around.
Originally Posted By: JeremyInMT
So the MRV values for both of those oils are not that hot in a very cold climate it looks like. If I remember correctly, the MRV of RL 0w30 is something like 27,000?
See this is what I was originally trying to ask,just didnt have my wording correct.
Caterham was kind enough to teach me that the Mobil 1 0wXX are about the lowest there are. M1 0w30's MRV (at -40) is 13,250 which is downright amazing compared to what else I see around.
See thats what I've been lookin for,as we get nasty-cold temps here during the winter months,sometimes highs for the day are -15degrees F !!
^If that happens, M1 AFE 0w30 is definitely an awesomely good low-temp environment alternative in 5w30 apps. I'd use it in any climate without consistent highs above 100 degree F, I'd favor it as a winter oil more-so, but it will yield better fuel economy slightly. Not sure how much moly SN version has, but personally I'd throw in a can of MoS2 for kicks.
I don't think the extreme cold performance of either oil is all that good. Amsoil doesn't give a MRV spec' but their CCS @-35C is not quite as good as RL; 5927cP vs 5600cP.
M1 0w30 is the obvious clear choice for a south Dakota winter.
It's on sale at Auto Zone for $29.99/5 quarts and a M1 filter. Can't beat that!
M1 0w30 is the obvious clear choice for a south Dakota winter.
It's on sale at Auto Zone for $29.99/5 quarts and a M1 filter. Can't beat that!
The only issue I personally have is,I lost alotta trust with Mobil when they started messing around with their formulations,so I really dont know WTH I'm purchasing.
Originally Posted By: DragRace
The only issue I personally have is,I lost alotta trust with Mobil when they started messing around with their formulations,so I really dont know WTH I'm purchasing.
I'd imagine it's just as legit as any other synthetic. In the end it can't be beat for cold-weather starting/performance. I live in Montana so I had bugged CATERHAM about this awhile ago. I also read in a separate post that MRV and HTHS have a greater deal to do with cold performance and MPG than kv.
The only issue I personally have is,I lost alotta trust with Mobil when they started messing around with their formulations,so I really dont know WTH I'm purchasing.
I'd imagine it's just as legit as any other synthetic. In the end it can't be beat for cold-weather starting/performance. I live in Montana so I had bugged CATERHAM about this awhile ago. I also read in a separate post that MRV and HTHS have a greater deal to do with cold performance and MPG than kv.
Originally Posted By: DragRace
The only issue I personally have is,I lost alotta trust with Mobil when they started messing around with their formulations,so I really dont know WTH I'm purchasing.
I their new SN formulations are top notch.
The only issue I personally have is,I lost alotta trust with Mobil when they started messing around with their formulations,so I really dont know WTH I'm purchasing.
I their new SN formulations are top notch.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: DragRace
The only issue I personally have is,I lost alotta trust with Mobil when they started messing around with their formulations,so I really dont know WTH I'm purchasing.
I their new SN formulations are top notch.
I wonder if he's referring to the now long-since passed, debacle over the concerns with allowance for too much wear which Castrol marketed off of etc,?
Either way, basic re-formulations wouldn't be scaring anyone as they happen often. That's the only reason I bring that up and I never even heard the true relay of what happened either, so w/e. I'd use M1 AFE if I wanted to in the winter especially.
Originally Posted By: DragRace
The only issue I personally have is,I lost alotta trust with Mobil when they started messing around with their formulations,so I really dont know WTH I'm purchasing.
I their new SN formulations are top notch.
I wonder if he's referring to the now long-since passed, debacle over the concerns with allowance for too much wear which Castrol marketed off of etc,?
Either way, basic re-formulations wouldn't be scaring anyone as they happen often. That's the only reason I bring that up and I never even heard the true relay of what happened either, so w/e. I'd use M1 AFE if I wanted to in the winter especially.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The only significant viscosity difference between the two oils are their VI's.
SSO is 172 and RL is 183, therefore RL would be thinner at all start-up temperatures.
So would this also mean that RL's 0W-40 would be thinner at ALL stat-up temps than RL 0w30 (197 vs. 183), and therefore safe to use in a 1 to 5 ratio in a 6 qt. sump for an east coast WINTER change??
Of course then I must worry about how winter fuel dilution/shear effects even the 'high grade' VI improvers which RL uses in their 0 weight oils.
The only significant viscosity difference between the two oils are their VI's.
SSO is 172 and RL is 183, therefore RL would be thinner at all start-up temperatures.
So would this also mean that RL's 0W-40 would be thinner at ALL stat-up temps than RL 0w30 (197 vs. 183), and therefore safe to use in a 1 to 5 ratio in a 6 qt. sump for an east coast WINTER change??
Of course then I must worry about how winter fuel dilution/shear effects even the 'high grade' VI improvers which RL uses in their 0 weight oils.
Dailydriver, you ask a question that I have.
Since a 0W-40 is heavier than a 0w30 or 0W-20 at operating temperature, and you notice that the VI goes up with each step wider in viscocity range, I wonder if this is true?
My thinking is that the VI needs to be higher for the wider spread between the lower (0W) and higher (40) number.
THIS is why, back a long time ago, it was best to not get a wider spread between the 2 numbers because more Viscosity Index Improvers (VII) were needed to meet the specification.
Since oils and their additives have improved over the years, it is less of an issue now.
I am still learning here...and this is a genuine question that I have.
Since a 0W-40 is heavier than a 0w30 or 0W-20 at operating temperature, and you notice that the VI goes up with each step wider in viscocity range, I wonder if this is true?
My thinking is that the VI needs to be higher for the wider spread between the lower (0W) and higher (40) number.
THIS is why, back a long time ago, it was best to not get a wider spread between the 2 numbers because more Viscosity Index Improvers (VII) were needed to meet the specification.
Since oils and their additives have improved over the years, it is less of an issue now.
I am still learning here...and this is a genuine question that I have.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The only significant viscosity difference between the two oils are their VI's.
Actually the HTHS vis of Redline is 3.2, Amsoil 3.1
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
A HTHS viscosity difference of 0.1cP is enough to reflect a measureable difference in oil pressure at normal operating temperature.
As to the OP's question, there is not a huge difference cold between these oils, both would serve you well.
The only significant viscosity difference between the two oils are their VI's.
Actually the HTHS vis of Redline is 3.2, Amsoil 3.1
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
A HTHS viscosity difference of 0.1cP is enough to reflect a measureable difference in oil pressure at normal operating temperature.
As to the OP's question, there is not a huge difference cold between these oils, both would serve you well.
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The only significant viscosity difference between the two oils are their VI's.
SSO is 172 and RL is 183, therefore RL would be thinner at all start-up temperatures.
So would this also mean that RL's 0W-40 would be thinner at ALL stat-up temps than RL 0w30 (197 vs. 183), and therefore safe to use in a 1 to 5 ratio in a 6 qt. sump for an east coast WINTER change??
Of course then I must worry about how winter fuel dilution/shear effects even the 'high grade' VI improvers which RL uses in their 0 weight oils.
You cannot ignore the HTHS of the 0W-40 (4.0!), which would make it much more viscous cold.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The only significant viscosity difference between the two oils are their VI's.
SSO is 172 and RL is 183, therefore RL would be thinner at all start-up temperatures.
So would this also mean that RL's 0W-40 would be thinner at ALL stat-up temps than RL 0w30 (197 vs. 183), and therefore safe to use in a 1 to 5 ratio in a 6 qt. sump for an east coast WINTER change??
Of course then I must worry about how winter fuel dilution/shear effects even the 'high grade' VI improvers which RL uses in their 0 weight oils.
You cannot ignore the HTHS of the 0W-40 (4.0!), which would make it much more viscous cold.
Originally Posted By: wiswind
Dailydriver, you ask a question that I have.
Since a 0W-40 is heavier than a 0w30 or 0W-20 at operating temperature, and you notice that the VI goes up with each step wider in viscocity range, I wonder if this is true?
My thinking is that the VI needs to be higher for the wider spread between the lower (0W) and higher (40) number.
THIS is why, back a long time ago, it was best to not get a wider spread between the 2 numbers because more Viscosity Index Improvers (VII) were needed to meet the specification.
Since oils and their additives have improved over the years, it is less of an issue now.
I am still learning here...and this is a genuine question that I have.
Viscosity Index is a mathematical function of the KV40 and KV100 viscosities of an oil, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with cold-flow properties (the W-number). The oil guru at the company where I work once told me that Viscosity Index calculations can't really be trusted at temperatures much below 20C, because of the behavior of long-chain molecules that start to form waxes. I believe that she was referring to conventional oils, and not synthetics in this.
Dailydriver, you ask a question that I have.
Since a 0W-40 is heavier than a 0w30 or 0W-20 at operating temperature, and you notice that the VI goes up with each step wider in viscocity range, I wonder if this is true?
My thinking is that the VI needs to be higher for the wider spread between the lower (0W) and higher (40) number.
THIS is why, back a long time ago, it was best to not get a wider spread between the 2 numbers because more Viscosity Index Improvers (VII) were needed to meet the specification.
Since oils and their additives have improved over the years, it is less of an issue now.
I am still learning here...and this is a genuine question that I have.
Viscosity Index is a mathematical function of the KV40 and KV100 viscosities of an oil, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with cold-flow properties (the W-number). The oil guru at the company where I work once told me that Viscosity Index calculations can't really be trusted at temperatures much below 20C, because of the behavior of long-chain molecules that start to form waxes. I believe that she was referring to conventional oils, and not synthetics in this.
I thought I saw someone posting that Redline's 0w30 real HTHS is 3.4. Which wouldn't surprise me at all...5w30 is 3.8.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The only significant viscosity difference between the two oils are their VI's.
Actually the HTHS vis of Redline is 3.2, Amsoil 3.1
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
A HTHS viscosity difference of 0.1cP is enough to reflect a measureable difference in oil pressure at normal operating temperature.
As to the OP's question, there is not a huge difference cold between these oils, both would serve you well.
I agree with your general thought there, but had to say that according to CATERHAM's RL 0w20 sent into the lab, the HTHS was 3.0, while on RL's site it's listed as 2.7. To go by RL, site values for 0w30 would probably not be the best idea in the world.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The only significant viscosity difference between the two oils are their VI's.
Actually the HTHS vis of Redline is 3.2, Amsoil 3.1
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
A HTHS viscosity difference of 0.1cP is enough to reflect a measureable difference in oil pressure at normal operating temperature.
As to the OP's question, there is not a huge difference cold between these oils, both would serve you well.
I agree with your general thought there, but had to say that according to CATERHAM's RL 0w20 sent into the lab, the HTHS was 3.0, while on RL's site it's listed as 2.7. To go by RL, site values for 0w30 would probably not be the best idea in the world.
- Status