Redline 5w-20

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by TooSlick:
...If you look at the VI's of "neat" PAO and Polyolester basestocks, about the highest VI you can get from a single basestock - usable for a multigrade engine oil - is about 145-155. However blends of two or more basestocks can achieve VI's >> 150. For example, the very thick PAO basestocks ("Supersyn" type) have VI's as high as 300. A small amount of this blended in can significantly improve the properties in the 40C to 100C range (significantly increasing the VI), with little degradation to the low temp CCS or cold pumping viscosity.

In the thread I linked to above Molakule posted various things that will affect HTHS viscosity. I understand your overal generalization, it's just that you're assuming facts not in evidence in this case, and ignoring facts that are.
The gist of what I'm saying is that looking at a VI and a general class-distinction of base stock (i.e. base oil group "above" III versus "below" III) and deriving an HTHS number seems fairly off-base for both the reasons Molakule gave and the ones you give above. That combined with the Savant "verification" of RedLine's numbers and "dispute" of Amsoil's seem to be enough to support the idea that HTHS numbers are a little more variable than you imply.
 
I'd try explaining this one more time - then I give up...
smile.gif
Please feel free to verify what I'm telling you with anyone on this board you choose.

If the HT/HS viscosities of all the Amsoil lubes were LOWER than reported (they're not BTW), it would serve to make the RL, HT/HS data even more suspect - NOT less so.

The bottom line is that the viscosity/temp curves for the ACD formulation and the RL/10w-30 would lie right on top of one another. By definition, that's what the VI is....If you look at the 40C/100C viscosities for these two oils, they are the same; given normal manufacturing tolerances.
The type of basestock wouldn't enter into this evaluation, since both these lubes don't use any polymeric thicker. In the case of ACD, this is specifically stated on the data sheet and I'm assuming it's true for the RL 10w-30.
 
RL 5w-20's HT/HS is not 2.8. That is the minimum. I'd say it's at least 3.1> RL doesn't make their oils to be the most fuel efficient. This is why they have such high HT/HS. My question is how will a PAO vs POE impact these numbers. Ted suggested they are similar making things more interesting....
 
quote:

Originally posted by Jason Troxell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:
The claimed HTHS for 5w-20, though, really is out there. They say 3.3cP, and I would guess 2.8cP at most. Jason, does RL have an "updated" spec for the 5w-20?

No it still says 3.3 on the newest one.

It's a thick 20wt. It's about 15% thinner than the 10w30 in kinematic viscosity. Actually if you took 15% off the 3.8 value it would be 3.3. Obviously lower if from new 3.5 spec. I don't know if it would work that way in reality though.
Also maybe they made a change to the xw30s but not the other grades. So I don't think its off. If it is,it's not much. All their other specs are dead on.


Hm if you use that logic the RL 5W-20 HTHS is 2.975??

Has anyone talked to RL about this issue?
 
Minimum HT/HS viscosities as defined by the SAE:

xw-20---------------------- 2.6 Cp

xw-30/5w-40/10w-40----------2.9 Cp

xw-30 (CI-4+ diesel)--------3.5 Cp
Note: This is also ACEA "A3/B4" spec

15w-40/xw-50----------------3.7 Cp
 
quote:

PAO's and PE's are both Newtonian fluids and are relatively unaffected by shear rates....

This addressed my question, but it was posted after I had begun to type my last post. Buster's follow-up below restates my question which your answer above addresses.

quote:

If the HT/HS viscosities of all the Amsoil lubes were LOWER than reported (they're not BTW)...

The thing about this statement is that Savant tested them to be much lower than what Amsoil reported. Forgive me if the reply of "they're not BTW" to that data is uncompelling.
 
quote:

Originally posted by TooSlick:
xw-30 (CI-4+ diesel)--------3.5 Cp
Note: This is also ACEA "A3/B4" spec


Not really. The ACEA HTHS requirements for A3 are >3.5 for Xw30. The requirements for A5 are neither spec.
 
quote:

Originally posted by TooSlick:
You can more less scale the relative HT/HS of the 5w-20 and 10w-30, since they both have VI of 140-144 and no polymeric thickener:

5w-20 = (9.1/10.7)(3.5 Cp) = HT/HS of 3.0 Cp @ 150C.

That would be a reasonable number... I don't think the HT/HS of the RL/5w-20 can be > Mobil 1/10w-30, since the M1 has a VI of 147, is thicker @ 100C and is completely shear stable in service....

PAO's and PE's are both Newtonian fluids and are relatively unaffected by shear rates....


...Except that Redline's 5w-20 kinematic isn't 9.1cSt. It's more like 8.3cSt. (So much for this other Redline spec being "spot on".)

Now, using this simple ratio formula we get 2.7cP--much more like it.
 
Savant tested one sample of RL, Amsoil, M1 and GC in the 10w-30 or 0w-30 grades, pulled at random off the shelf. ALL four came in lower than their spec values for HT/HS in these tests. This leads me to believe that the Savant test equipment was perhaps out of calibration or the spec sheets were based on outdated batch data.

Savant Data:

GC, 3.45 Cp - listed as 3.6
ATM, 3.31 Cp - listed as 3.5
M1, 3.1 Cp - listed as 3.2
RL, 3.48 Cp - listed as 3.8

Jay brings up an excellent point...the numbers listed on spec sheets are "typical technical properties" and subject to normal batch to batch variation. In addition, basestocks and additives due change from time to time - even for API licensed formulations.

The easiest way to evaluate HT/HS viscosity in service is with accurate oil pressure and oil temp gauges.
 
All of these numbers will vary to some degree. I emailed RL and asked them to send me the latest PDS for all their oils.
 
quote:

Originally posted by TooSlick:
Here's a good comparison point....

The new "ACD" 10w-30 formulation is blended with NO polymeric thickeners, so it's completely shear stable. It has a kinematic viscosity of 10.9 Cst @ 100C, a VI of 141 and a HT/HS of 3.5 Cp. Note that 3.5 Cp is the mininum required by the SAE for the CI-4 rated, SAE 10w-30 grade.

The RL 10w-30 is 10.6 Cst @ 100C, has a VI of 142 and a claimed HT/HS of 3.8 Cp - which seems high, given it has identical viscometrics to ACD.

The only difference is that RL uses the ASTM "D-4741" test (capillary viscometer), whereas Amsoil uses the ASTM "D-4683" test, ie the tapered bearing simulator. So I suspect there is a bias between these two tests and the #'s they yield....


Well, D-4741 is the tapered plug test, not the capillary viscometer test, and both of those tests (4741 & 4683) refer to each other and say they should agree "on average in the long run" according to Molakule's post on the subject here.

Where my confusion seems to enter is why you're saying that two different fluids (that is to say, composed of significantly different types of base stocks) which happen to have similar kinematic viscosities at 100C ought to have the same HTHS values. I thought that one of the reasons for choosing different base stocks (and additives, for that matter) was to achieve different properties (including HTHS viscosities). I mean, if that wasn't the case, there would be no reason to use Amsoil, Redline, GC, M1...
dunno.gif


[ July 21, 2005, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: bulwnkl ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by TooSlick:
This leads me to believe that the Savant test equipment was perhaps out of calibration or the spec sheets were based on outdated batch data.

Savant Data:

GC, 3.45 Cp - listed as 3.6
ATM, 3.31 Cp - listed as 3.5
M1, 3.1 Cp - listed as 3.2
RL, 3.48 Cp - listed as 3.8


Ted it's clear what you are tying to do. RL is speced as 3.5 and you know that. They will tell you that and I have emailed you the data sheet.
 
There will be some variation from batch to batch, however it seems that redline had greatest variation of 4 oils tested and that I don't like!
 
By the way Ted go back and look at the Savant data: M1 tested at 3.12. The old spec sheet was 3.17, the SM sheet is 3.11. You are trying to tell us .05 is a significant difference!?!? Cut the crap. Everyones data (inlcuding RL) matched up EXCEPT Amsoil. End of story.

Zoomzoom, RL was actually tested on two different samples in a large time frame difference and tested at 3.5 and 3.6. Spec sheet is 3.5. Where is the problem?
 
Jason I was going by what they have on RL website and 10W-30 shows HTHS of 3.8?

I was thinking of runing RL 5W-20 during the winter time in my S4 thinking that it has nice HTHS of 3.3 but I am not so sure that number is right?
 
A friendly bet to anyone who thinks Redline's advertised 5w-20 HTHS spec is correct:

Let's test it. If the HTHS viscosity by either ASTM D4741 or D4683 is 3.3cP or higher (+ or - 3%), I'll pay for the test. If it's lower, you pay for the test.

The loser of this bet is out about $200, though. The only lab I've found that will do it is SwRI, and that's their fee. Amsoil will do the ASTM D5481 test for $90.
 
Jay that is a good idea, I was going to suggest testing it, but more of a group contribution, like the GC testing. I'd contribute to that, but I don't really have $200 to spend right now (not that it's likely I would have to
smile.gif
) Not willing to take that risk at this time.
 
Even if it is 3.1, that is by far the best you'll find for a 20wt oil and pratically on par with Amsoil Xw-30 wt oils.
 
TS,

Why would you say that HTHS is proportional to viscosity at 100C. If it was proportional there would be no reason to list it on the data sheet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top