Redline Oil Compromises Mileage & HP??

[Ron AKA]

Hopefully I am not going to be burned at the stake for this first post. I'm a new owner of a 2006 Mazda3 2.3L and was shocked to see they recommend 5w20 oil for it. So I did some research on it, and found an excellent article at the link below. I believe it was posted here by one of the contributers.

Oil Fuel Mileage Paper

This certainly answered my questions about why it is recommended, so my next undertaking was to identify the best Xw20 oils based on HTHS viscosity. It seems to be the critical factor in getting the best fuel mileage and most HP out of the engine. Following is my list in order of best to worst, with a few 5w30's thrown in for comparison.

Manufacturer Type & Grade, HTHS, VI
Pennzoil Platinum 5w-20, 2.6*, 160
Castrol SYNTEC 5w20, 2.6*, ??
Mobil 1 0w-20, 2.61, 165
Mobil 1 5w-20, 2.62, 163
Motorcraft 5w-20, 2.65, 161
Amsoil 5w-20, 2.7, 165
Pennzoil Platinum 5w-30, 3.0, 167
Mobil 1 5w-30, 3.09, 169
Amsoil 5w-30, 3.2, 173
Castrol GTX 10w30, 3.2, ??
Redline 5w-20, 3.3, 145
Redline 5w-30, 3.8, 153

*Some manufacturers do not give the second digit accuracy, so order could change as the HTHS could have been as high as 2.64 (and deviously rounded off to 2.6!)


So my question is why would one use those expensive oils like Redline that have such high HTHS? You see lots of posts from Redline users that claim many magic things for the oil including better mileage and more HP. However, the science and specifications do not support that. In fact Redline 5w20 would be about the worst possible choice for mileage and HP. Even the viscosity index is poorest in the Redline. To somewhat answer my own question I understand that there MAY be some possible wear benefits in a higher HTHS oil, but if so, why not just use a cheaper conventional oil like Castrol GTX 10w30 that has the same HTHS?

Sorry for the long post,

 

[Brandon Gatz]

Redline 5w20 for teh win

 

[flatlandtacoma]

I guess keep reading the forum here, you will learn a lot like I am in the process of doing.

Most people consider a higher HTHS number to be better. In fact, 2.6 is the minimum that a 5w20 can have to meet SAE J300 and be called a 5w20. The minimum for 5w30 is 2.9. HTHS numbers higher than the minimum mean better protection for your engine.

BTW,

 

[ARB1977]

Pick any oil and be happy.

 

[tdi-rick]

keep reading the site to get a better understanding on those numbers you posted.
There are some very good articles in 'The Science and Technology of Oils' section on this site.

A higher (relative) HTHS number indicates that that oil is more stable, less likely to shear under high loads and temps. This is a good thing !
Redlines relatively lower VI is because they don't use (or use relatively little) VII's (polymeric thickeners) to blend their oils. VII'as tend to to shear, sometimes irreversibly under load (hence Redlines higher HTHS numbers)

In your example above these two sets of numbers together indicate that Redline are using a higher proportion of temperature stable base fluids rather than use a relatively thin base oil and 'beef it up' with viscosity improvers.

 

[SSDude]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tdi-rick:
keep reading the site to get a better understanding on those numbers you posted.
There are some very good articles in 'The Science and Technology of Oils' section on this site.

A higher (relative) HTHS number indicates that that oil is more stable, less likely to shear under high loads and temps. This is a good thing !
Redlines relatively lower VI is because they don't use (or use relatively little) VII's (polymeric thickeners) to blend their oils. VII'as tend to to shear, sometimes irreversibly under load (hence Redlines higher HTHS numbers)

In your example above these two sets of numbers together indicate that Redline are using a higher proportion of temperature stable base fluids rather than use a relatively thin base oil and 'beef it up' with viscosity improvers.

---

Words of wisdom!!!

 

[Ron AKA]

I appreciate the potential benefits of a higher HTHS. However, they are potential as studies and actual oil analysis results of 2.6 HTHS oils have been very positive. In the paper I have posted, the research which appears very thorough indicates that the lower HTHS oils reduce friction (implicitly wear) for the journal bearings and piston rings, while increasing losses in the valve train. With more any more engines employing 4 valves per cylinder potentially the valve train is not the limiting factor for engine life. And we also need to consider the whole engine, not just the valves.

So, I'm not at all convinced at this point that a lower HTHS (and above 2.6) compromises engine life. That still leaves the question. Why spend the big bucks on Redline or other oils that have a high HTHS? Seems to me that the extra $$'s are being spent on an oil that provides poorer performance.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tdi-rick:

A higher (relative) HTHS number indicates that that oil is more stable, less likely to shear under high loads and temps. This is a good thing !
Redlines relatively lower VI is because they don't use (or use relatively little) VII's (polymeric thickeners) to blend their oils. VII'as tend to to shear, sometimes irreversibly under load (hence Redlines higher HTHS numbers)

In your example above these two sets of numbers together indicate that Redline are using a higher proportion of temperature stable base fluids rather than use a relatively thin base oil and 'beef it up' with viscosity improvers.

---

I understand the role of viscosity index improver polymers and that they can breakdown in service. That is the main advantage of using a synthetic oil. Their use can be minimized. However, it has been long established that viscosity breakdown of synthetic oils is essentially a non issue for reasonable oil change intervals. Also a 5w20 or even a 0w20 is not exactly a very challenging multi viscosity range. So why would Redline choose to use a base oil without additives that makes it inferior to other oils that may or may not have viscosity index improver additives? In other words they provide an oil that is poorer from mile one compared to one that is much better at mile 1 and is insignificantly reduced in performance at mile 5,000.

 

[deven]

Ron AKA, welcome to the forum, I have actually been following your discussion with the Mazda3forums.com board and i think you have a lot of useful information to share.

 

[Drew99GT]

Ron, look up the writings of fellow member Dr. AEHASS. He is a huge proponent of 5w-20 oils (he uses them in his Ferraris for pete sake!). He also believes that the hole fixation on oils having to have a HT/HS higher than say, 2.9 for low wear, is baloney.

 

[buster]

I'm not sure shearing is desired to achieve better fuel efficiency. Redline wants to build the most shear stable oil, while making it the most heavily friction modified. They don't want to rely on getting that fuel efficiency from the oil shearing, rather just making it more friction modified. Not sure if that is correct, but that is how I always viewed it.

 

[Steve S]

Engineers ???

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
I'm not sure shearing is desired to achieve better fuel efficiency. Redline wants to build the most shear stable oil, while making it the most heavily friction modified. They don't want to rely on getting that fuel efficiency from the oil shearing, rather just making it more friction modified. Not sure if that is correct, but that is how I always viewed it.

---

Considering the 80/20 rule, the posted paper findings were that HTHS accounts for the lion's share of the mileage/HP effects. The friction modifiers are helpful but minor additions.

 

[JohnBrowning]

Higher HTHS has nothing to do with increaseing HP or fuel ecconomy!!! More then likely you will experince an increase in HP and fuel economy as the HTHS drops if most other factors about the compared oils are close to the same. In general an oil with a higher HTHS in with in it's SAE viscosity rateing will also have a higher viscosity not to be confused with viscosity index. No the problem becomes one of additve package. None of the other oils in the comparison even come close to Redline and their base stocks are also wildly different as well. So the numbers you posted really are not going to be completely useful. In terms of fuel milage and HP you really have to try the oil and see what you get. None of them though will make any difference in the butt dyno if they are the same SAE viscosity.Most people do experince increased HP and fuel ecconomy with Redline in spite of it's higher viscosity due to it's additive package.

I also think it is stupid to try to use oil viscosity and HTHS as a band aid for fuel ecconomy. If you want increased fuel ecconomy that is going to be significant to the end user then it is going to take serious in vestment in materials and technology. The only people that really have anything to gain in terms of fuel ecconomy with 5W20 or better yet the thinest lightest 5W20 or 0W20 are the corperations worried about CAFE credits! Joe blow driveing a Honda is not going to save a bundle each year in fuel costs because he ran the lowest HTHS XW20 over running Redline! We also know that wear is related to HTHS to a point. So we have to decide at some point if the fuel milage gained with a 2.6HTHS XW20 is worth the added protection we get in some cases by useing a 5W20 that has an HTHS of 3.3?

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
HTHS has nothing to do with HP or fuel ecconomy!!! More then likely you will experince an increase in HP and fuel economy as the HTHS drops if most other factors about the compared oils are close to the same. In general an oil with a higher HTHS in with in it's SAE viscosity rateing will also have a higher viscosity not to be confused with viscosity index. No the problem becomes one of additve package. None of the other oils in the comparison even come close to Redline and their base stocks are also wildly different as well. So the numbers you posted really are not going to be completely useful. In terms of fuel milage and HP you really have to try the oil and see what you get. None of them though will make any difference in the butt dyno if they are the same SAE viscosity.Most people do experince increased HP and fuel ecconomy with Redline in spite of it's higher viscosity due to it's additive package.

---

Only one question. Have you actually read the posted paper from the Shell engineer?

 

[JohnBrowning]

Yes, I was not impressed either. I have now read 2 papers from shell concerning Xw20 oils. This one did not impress me any more then the other one. In some case's he states the obvious in others it seemed to me to be contradicting other work we have seen. It just read to me like the out come of the paper was determined prior to the actual test and then the results were selected or edited to match the desired result. We have seen to many real world examples were Redline has improved HP and fuel ecconomy in spite of haveing the highest SUS and HTHS as compared to other oils tested. We have seen tomaqny cases were heavy additive packages have made a huge difference in HP and fuel ecconomy. I am not convinced. I am actualy begining to think poorly of Shell as I see more of their papers!!!!It would also be different if Shell actualy had a top shelf product not to be confused with an over priced product.They do have a few over priced synthetics easily available outside the USA but they never do as well as their competion in HP or wear tests.

P.S. I went back and edited my origanal post to make it read more like what I was thinking at the time I typed it.

 

[brucelee]

The Shell engineer may be trying to rationalize the fact that his oils are simply not anywhere near as heat stable as Red Line.

As for MPG, my use of RL suggests that it will certainly increase mileage over any DINO oil.


So, say we compare RL vs Shell synthetic, I would guess you could not find a MPG difference that would make a whit's worth of difference to most of us here.

However, if the oil in my BMW is shearing, well that IS an important issue to me.

 

[Pablo]

First -

good post
Second - why would you be "shocked" by the 5W-20 oil recommendation? I was actually happy to buy a car that thrives on 5W-20!

In the practical world there is more than viscometric data about an oil. Your list and this sentence (and the Shell guys) are a bit misleading:

"It seems to be the critical factor in getting the best fuel mileage and most HP out of the engine. Following is my list in order of best to worst......"

I for one do think, in simplistic terms, a thinner oil will get better MPG. To base your list purely on the input of Shell and HTHS (and shearing) assumptions is misleading IMHO. Let's say we had a perfect test set up, where we could measure fuel consumption with true precision and accuracy out three places (.XXX) I would bet - and maybe this is agreeing with the paper - that whatever oil had the lowest viscosity at any given moment will have the best MPG. So really your list should include the 100°C viscosity at least.

So on a practical note for best MPG and best engine protection - the right motor oil will have the correct SAE, but lower range viscosity AND have all the other critical parameters of the base oil and the additive package to protect your engine. And basically your topic of discussion ends in the usual BiTOG conundrum.

 

[brucelee]

"So really your list should include the 100°C viscosity at least."

I would agree with this statement and in fact, was about to post it.

Thanks!

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
Second - why would you be "shocked" by the 5W-20 oil recommendation? I was actually happy to buy a car that thrives on 5W-20!

---

I think we give the automakers more credit than they deserve for suggesting their engines are designed for a specific grade of oil. For Mazda's delivered to Europe the OEM recommends 10w40 oil. No evidence that the engine is any different. I suspect the European sales guys have told them to get lost with the thin oil trick, as thick oils are popular with consumers in Europe. Also Ford has apparantly retroactively recommended these thinner oils for their vehicles.

On the HTHS not being significant, it would be very interesting to find out what Redline's HTHS is for their actual racing oils. I have not been able to find them. However, I suspect they are much lower than the street product, or they would be viewing all the races from the rear.

Yes, these differences are not great. I would estimate that Redline 5w20 would get about 1% less fuel mileage and 1% less horsepower than say a Mobil 1 5w20, or 0w20. Probably not noticeable on the street. However, if everyone did it then it does become significant when you consider the continent gas consumption.

Efficiency vs HTHS Graph