Redline Oil Compromises Mileage & HP??
- Thread starter Ron AKA
- Start date
- Status
Poppycock. Anyone can cheerypick the SAE papers they want to prove their beliefs. And the only thing proved in the Formula V series is more viscous oils are the only way those poorly designed engines can survive.
Dear Mr. EOM/SOPUS apologist.. I mean Mr. Troll, er, I mean Ron AKA: Is Red Line 'qualified' to SL? If so, are they not 'qualified' to SM? The bottles of 5W20 I just put in my vehicle yesterday say SM on them. I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out whether Red Line is 'qualified' to the standards you mentioned.
I am an engineer and work with an office full of engineers. Engineers like to figure out how stuff works, and they like to talk about how stuff works with other people. They really, really like to tell people how stuff works. (makes em feel smart). They don't like being told that they are incorrect. They will argue for hours just to proove that they were not incorrect.
We are at that stage with Ron. He is not trying to figure anything out, he is not listening to what anyone says, he is just trying to proove that he was right.
What was his premise again? Oh yea. Redline oil compromises mileage and HP.
Sorry, I did make a mistake. I intended to question why Redline cannot qualify to GF-4 and SM/SL, when many others can.
Ron, Redline still uses high doses of ZDDP bc for high performance applications, it is still the best additive. Redline is fully aware of the replacement additives being used for most PCMO's, but it choses to be an oil that can be used for racing, and extended drain intervals. It is overkill for 99% of the general public.
If you look at any racing oil, whether it's Joe Gibb's, Royal Purple or M1 R, they all have a lot of ZDDP. What don't you understand about this? I'm not sure why you keep asking this question? RL's chemist used to work for Lubrizol. They know what they are doing.
If you look at any racing oil, whether it's Joe Gibb's, Royal Purple or M1 R, they all have a lot of ZDDP. What don't you understand about this? I'm not sure why you keep asking this question? RL's chemist used to work for Lubrizol. They know what they are doing.
Admission - It was a backhanded comment. You are assuming that it is the ZDDP that is keeping them from qualifying for GF-4. I was really suggesting that they are smart guys and probably can find alternatives (as the other smart guys have done), but their real problem could very well be the high HTHS and it is the gas mileage that is keeping them offside. And obviously mileage is directly related to lost HP, and that is where this thread started. It will be interesting to see if Redline publishes their HTHS if they do decide to qualify for GF-4. It would be a public admission that they have been conning Redline users on the mileage and HP issue.
There is a lot more to GF-4 than improved fuel economy; reduced oxidation, better sludge control, less harmful to emission control systems, and improved wear protection (according to GM). See this GM link for a simple explaination of the changes:
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability..._emissions/news/gm_supports_latest_ilasc.html
Could be wrong but I think this clause of the GF-4 is what is giving some oil makers trouble with additives. It is intended to protect the catylitic converter by limiting the phosphorus, and that is one of the components of ZDDP.
"3.a Catalyst Compatibility
Phosphorus Content, ASTM D 4951 0.08% (mass) maximum
Sulfur Content, ASTM D 4951 or D 2622
SAE 0W and 5W multigrades 0.5% (mass) maximum
SAE 10W multigrades 0.7% (mass) maximum"
http://www.ilma.org/resources/ilsac_finalstd011404.pdf
But, my suggestion again is that perhaps it is not this clause but really the fuel efficiency one that is troubling them.
Ron, that is true and GF-4/SM has improved your regular oil. However, if you talk to many of the Synthetic oil makers, they still believe that higher doses of ZDDP are needed for racing applications.
With that said, for 99% of us, we don't need an oil like that. Any SM rated oil will provide excellent engine protection, better oxidation control and produce less sludge/deposits Again though, for companies that cater to the high performance markets, they will continue to use ZDDP bc it works best in those types of applications.
Generally speaking, viscosity is what plays the most significant role in fuel economy, hence the move to 20wt. Redline targets the "performance market" and continues to build their oils with the highest shear stability and highest levels of antiwear they can. They are not concerned with CAFE and API ratings.
I am a fan of the SM spec and think that most oils have improved significantly. I have zero issues with SM/GF-4 rated oils, just as I have no issues with Royal Purple, Joe Gibb's or RL which focus soley on high end performance.
With that said, for 99% of us, we don't need an oil like that. Any SM rated oil will provide excellent engine protection, better oxidation control and produce less sludge/deposits Again though, for companies that cater to the high performance markets, they will continue to use ZDDP bc it works best in those types of applications.
Generally speaking, viscosity is what plays the most significant role in fuel economy, hence the move to 20wt. Redline targets the "performance market" and continues to build their oils with the highest shear stability and highest levels of antiwear they can. They are not concerned with CAFE and API ratings.
I am a fan of the SM spec and think that most oils have improved significantly. I have zero issues with SM/GF-4 rated oils, just as I have no issues with Royal Purple, Joe Gibb's or RL which focus soley on high end performance.
Folks seem to be missing the point here....
The keys to maintaining high fuel efficiency over the life of any engine depend on minimizing wear and engine deposits - particularly the latter. Redline excels in both these departments, so your long term fuel usage will be excellent with this product.
TS
The keys to maintaining high fuel efficiency over the life of any engine depend on minimizing wear and engine deposits - particularly the latter. Redline excels in both these departments, so your long term fuel usage will be excellent with this product.
TS
To the best of my knowledge, Redline has never qualified any of its oils at any time under the API or other certification program.
When you look at a bottle of one of their oils it says something like "Recommended For API ....".
The last time I looked running an oil through the API certification process took $250k or so. The API lets you certify a formulation and use it in several weights and does some other things to keep the costs down, but for boutique bottlers it's still a big expense.
Also, since the small shops buy their ingredients in small batches, they may have changes in the formulation depending on what they find on the spot market. That would require recertification.
A major will actually "qualify" a formulation following whatever the accrediting body requires in the way of tests and certifcation.
As noted, HTHS is not the only item that affects mpg. A few of them are:
-Viscosity
-HTHS
-AF additives
-Engine cleanliness
BTW, Redline specifically claims that you will get more HP with redline, than other oils. Don't the high doses of Moly in Redline increase the AF properties of the oil?
-Viscosity
-HTHS
-AF additives
-Engine cleanliness
BTW, Redline specifically claims that you will get more HP with redline, than other oils. Don't the high doses of Moly in Redline increase the AF properties of the oil?
Uhg.
I'll stick with Redline for all my stuff.
Vince
I'll stick with Redline for all my stuff.
Vince
Ron AKA, you're correct to compare the viscosities of different oils based on their HTHS viscosity and VI. Those two spec's are the most important and tell you everything you need to know about an oil's operational viscosity at oil temp's of 150C down to well below freezing; say -15C or so.
HTHS vis' is misunderstood by most but from a practical perspective it is an accurate measure of how thick or thin an oil is in an operating IC engine. Oil's with the same HTHS vis' and VI's within 20 points of each other will have the same operational viscosities at normal operating temp's as low as 70C and above. This was explained why in the following post:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2001169&page=1
While an oil's viscosity is the most inportant factor in determining power and fuel economy, the coefficient of friction (CoF) of different chemistries is also a factor.
Red Line claims to use fluids (POE) and additives (Moly) that result in an oil with a very low CoF comparied to what is typically available.
But being first and foremost a race oil formulator fuel economy is not the target, it's high temp' protection.
Both their 5W-20 (HTHS 3.3cP, VI 145) and their 0W-20 (HTHS 3.0cP, VI 166) are not true 20wt oils and are not claimed to be if you read the RL literature closely. A mid-grade 30wt and a light 30wt respectively would be a more accurate discription.
Of the oils you've listed, you've made no mention of the latest crop of ultra low viscosity/high VI 0W-20 oils that are on the markets that have been formulated with the ultimate in fuel economy in mind, not just when up to normal operating temp' but on cold start-up as well.
The best example of these would be the Toyota brand 0W-20 with it's industry leading VI of 214. It also contains a boat load of moly. Being a 20wt oil it must start with a HTHS vis of 2.6cP BUT this oil shears by design almost 10% immediately in service. Id say it's HTHS vis is closer to 2.4cP in reality.
But what's most impressive about this oil is just how light it is on start-up, even at room temp. That is a result of it's ultra high VI. Based on it's inflated kinematic vis' spec's it's 20% lighter than M1 0W-20 at 20C and 30% lighter at freezing (0C). In reality it's probabily another 15% than that.
HTHS vis' is misunderstood by most but from a practical perspective it is an accurate measure of how thick or thin an oil is in an operating IC engine. Oil's with the same HTHS vis' and VI's within 20 points of each other will have the same operational viscosities at normal operating temp's as low as 70C and above. This was explained why in the following post:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2001169&page=1
While an oil's viscosity is the most inportant factor in determining power and fuel economy, the coefficient of friction (CoF) of different chemistries is also a factor.
Red Line claims to use fluids (POE) and additives (Moly) that result in an oil with a very low CoF comparied to what is typically available.
But being first and foremost a race oil formulator fuel economy is not the target, it's high temp' protection.
Both their 5W-20 (HTHS 3.3cP, VI 145) and their 0W-20 (HTHS 3.0cP, VI 166) are not true 20wt oils and are not claimed to be if you read the RL literature closely. A mid-grade 30wt and a light 30wt respectively would be a more accurate discription.
Of the oils you've listed, you've made no mention of the latest crop of ultra low viscosity/high VI 0W-20 oils that are on the markets that have been formulated with the ultimate in fuel economy in mind, not just when up to normal operating temp' but on cold start-up as well.
The best example of these would be the Toyota brand 0W-20 with it's industry leading VI of 214. It also contains a boat load of moly. Being a 20wt oil it must start with a HTHS vis of 2.6cP BUT this oil shears by design almost 10% immediately in service. Id say it's HTHS vis is closer to 2.4cP in reality.
But what's most impressive about this oil is just how light it is on start-up, even at room temp. That is a result of it's ultra high VI. Based on it's inflated kinematic vis' spec's it's 20% lighter than M1 0W-20 at 20C and 30% lighter at freezing (0C). In reality it's probabily another 15% than that.
CATERHAM, This thread was from 2006, and the paper that he was linking is even older.
One of the responses stated that it was from 1981.
Cyclops revived this thread because the link in the first post no longer works.
Ron AKA stated that we was thinking a 1% loss in fuel economy and HP with the Redline 5W-20 as compared to Mobil 1 5W-20 and 0W-20.
I have read your posts that Redline xW-20 oils are best compared to Mobil 1 xW-30 oils.
I have Redline 5W-20 in my engine that specifies 5W-30.
I am FAR from being able to detect and atribute a 1% change in fuel economy to anything in my vehicle.
Although it is informative reading to become educated on what oil specifications impact fuel economy.
I think your post will be helpful in directing cyclops to more up-to-date information on the subject.
One of the responses stated that it was from 1981.
Cyclops revived this thread because the link in the first post no longer works.
Ron AKA stated that we was thinking a 1% loss in fuel economy and HP with the Redline 5W-20 as compared to Mobil 1 5W-20 and 0W-20.
I have read your posts that Redline xW-20 oils are best compared to Mobil 1 xW-30 oils.
I have Redline 5W-20 in my engine that specifies 5W-30.
I am FAR from being able to detect and atribute a 1% change in fuel economy to anything in my vehicle.
Although it is informative reading to become educated on what oil specifications impact fuel economy.
I think your post will be helpful in directing cyclops to more up-to-date information on the subject.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Both their 5W-20 (HTHS 3.3cP, VI 145) and their 0W-20 (HTHS 3.0cP, VI 166) are not true 20wt oils and are not claimed to be if you read the RL literature closely. A mid-grade 30wt and a light 30wt respectively would be a more accurate discription.
CATERHAM - I read/have read a lot of your writings on RL, but I thought the 0W-20 has an HTHS of ~2.7, coming in under a 30wt requirement? Sorry for the derailment, I'm ordering RL 5W-20 for my Xw-30 spec'd car soon and want to make the right choice. Thanks
Both their 5W-20 (HTHS 3.3cP, VI 145) and their 0W-20 (HTHS 3.0cP, VI 166) are not true 20wt oils and are not claimed to be if you read the RL literature closely. A mid-grade 30wt and a light 30wt respectively would be a more accurate discription.
CATERHAM - I read/have read a lot of your writings on RL, but I thought the 0W-20 has an HTHS of ~2.7, coming in under a 30wt requirement? Sorry for the derailment, I'm ordering RL 5W-20 for my Xw-30 spec'd car soon and want to make the right choice. Thanks
- Status
