Redline 5w40 SM/CJ4
- Thread starter Taylor
- Start date
- Status
If I don't have the bottle , I'll call the shop and get one from them doubt they have sold any since I bought mne. They can check their inventory on the computer. No worries of quality I dumped it In before I had the voa, I just wanted a baseline for the uoa two years from now.
she's got some hair on it,
,how much a qt???
A flat tappets dream oil wow,nice [censored]!!
Originally Posted By: Taylor
I just thought it was funny how on the back it says "not for break-in, wait at least 3,000mi"
Are you kidding!!!
I just thought it was funny how on the back it says "not for break-in, wait at least 3,000mi"
Are you kidding!!!
Red Line has said "not for break-in" for many years on the bottles I've seen.
The moly being used again in this viscosity grade is interesting.
It does bother me from an honesty standpoint that they list API CJ4 because that limits the sulfated ash to 1.0%, and judging by the concentration of metallic elements I see here, I highly doubt its sulfated ash would be 1.0% or less.
The flashpoint is much lower than I expected but perhaps the test result is in error.
The moly being used again in this viscosity grade is interesting.
It does bother me from an honesty standpoint that they list API CJ4 because that limits the sulfated ash to 1.0%, and judging by the concentration of metallic elements I see here, I highly doubt its sulfated ash would be 1.0% or less.
The flashpoint is much lower than I expected but perhaps the test result is in error.
Oldies like me may remember the incredible UOA's with this oil, from a very high horsepower turbocharged engine posted by Tyrolkid. They should still be here somewhere.
Originally Posted By: JAG
It does bother me from an honesty standpoint that they list API CJ4 because that limits the sulfated ash to 1.0%, and judging by the concentration of metallic elements I see here, I highly doubt its sulfated ash would be 1.0% or less.
The flashpoint is much lower than I expected but perhaps the test result is in error.
It actually says "recommended for API SM, SL..." on the bottle. It doesn't say it meets it. I have asked Dave about this in the past and they said they don't meet it due to higher P than allowed (thank goodness it has the high ZDDP!).
Re: flashpoint, this great post from TomNJ is interesting in that it shows how variable the flashpoint method can be:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/funny-oil-test.104064/
I agree 395 seems low. It may sound funny but silicon is lower than the 16-18 I am used to seeing for VOAs also. Also the 2 VOAs done on this oil last year did not have Boron like this one does but the 2007 one does which makes me think this may be the old formulation.???
Here is a 2007 UOA http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1041896
There are 2 from 2008: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1264593
It does bother me from an honesty standpoint that they list API CJ4 because that limits the sulfated ash to 1.0%, and judging by the concentration of metallic elements I see here, I highly doubt its sulfated ash would be 1.0% or less.
The flashpoint is much lower than I expected but perhaps the test result is in error.
It actually says "recommended for API SM, SL..." on the bottle. It doesn't say it meets it. I have asked Dave about this in the past and they said they don't meet it due to higher P than allowed (thank goodness it has the high ZDDP!).
Re: flashpoint, this great post from TomNJ is interesting in that it shows how variable the flashpoint method can be:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/funny-oil-test.104064/
I agree 395 seems low. It may sound funny but silicon is lower than the 16-18 I am used to seeing for VOAs also. Also the 2 VOAs done on this oil last year did not have Boron like this one does but the 2007 one does which makes me think this may be the old formulation.???
Here is a 2007 UOA http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1041896
There are 2 from 2008: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1264593
Last edited:
711 moly? That's not additive, that's enough to coat the entire internal of the engine. I bet the fuel economy will dramatically increase.
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Originally Posted By: JAG
It does bother me from an honesty standpoint that they list API CJ4 because that limits the sulfated ash to 1.0%, and judging by the concentration of metallic elements I see here, I highly doubt its sulfated ash would be 1.0% or less.
The flashpoint is much lower than I expected but perhaps the test result is in error.
It actually says "recommended for API SM, SL..." on the bottle. It doesn't say it meets it. I have asked Dave about this in the past and they said they don't meet it due to higher P than allowed (thank goodness it has the high ZDDP!).
Re: flashpoint, this great post from TomNJ is interesting in that it shows how variable the flashpoint method can be:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/funny-oil-test.104064/
I agree 395 seems low. It may sound funny but silicon is lower than the 16-18 I am used to seeing for VOAs also. Also the 2 VOAs done on this oil last year did not have Boron like this one does but the 2007 one does which makes me think this may be the old formulation.???
Here is a 2007 UOA http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1041896
There are 2 from 2008: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1264593
SM ZDP limits aren't imposed on 40w....
I have consulted Blackstone and they said no other recent VOA's are showing moly, so....
Originally Posted By: JAG
It does bother me from an honesty standpoint that they list API CJ4 because that limits the sulfated ash to 1.0%, and judging by the concentration of metallic elements I see here, I highly doubt its sulfated ash would be 1.0% or less.
The flashpoint is much lower than I expected but perhaps the test result is in error.
It actually says "recommended for API SM, SL..." on the bottle. It doesn't say it meets it. I have asked Dave about this in the past and they said they don't meet it due to higher P than allowed (thank goodness it has the high ZDDP!).
Re: flashpoint, this great post from TomNJ is interesting in that it shows how variable the flashpoint method can be:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/funny-oil-test.104064/
I agree 395 seems low. It may sound funny but silicon is lower than the 16-18 I am used to seeing for VOAs also. Also the 2 VOAs done on this oil last year did not have Boron like this one does but the 2007 one does which makes me think this may be the old formulation.???
Here is a 2007 UOA http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1041896
There are 2 from 2008: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1264593
SM ZDP limits aren't imposed on 40w....
I have consulted Blackstone and they said no other recent VOA's are showing moly, so....
- Status
Similar threads
