Redline Reforumlation or just label change

Messages
879
Location
New York
Just finished doing an oil change yesterday and used some bottles I had on the shelf and cracked opened another box of Redline for an additional 3 quarts. It was 5W30 but I noticed the bottles that were in the box I had opened had a different label design on them. Anyone happen to know if it's just a label change or was there any *reformulations* going on
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Messages
21,698
Location
Iowegia - USA
Redline has increased their Calcium/Boron contents like Amsoil and Mobil and a host of others, but the label change is mainly a cosmetic makeover.
 
Messages
666
Location
Triad, NC
Can someone please post some pics of the new label ..... maybe so I can read the text?? Thank you!!
quote:
Originally posted by MolaKule: The bottles I have are white, but the label is blue. New Text and new look.
 
Messages
666
Location
Triad, NC
Hmmm, I just got a delivery of Redline 5W-30 with the new labels ..... they rate the oil ACEA A5 now and no longer A3 ... A5 is a slightly inferior rating to A3. Wonder why they did that??? [I dont know]
 

Leo

Messages
911
Location
Australia
Probably because it doesnt meet the HTHS requirements of A3! Redlines HTHS for the 5W-30 is 3.8 using the ATSM 4741, and older method. ACEA and most other manufacturers now use ATSM D 4683 to evaluate HTHS. So my feeling is that under ATSM 4683, Redlines HTHS is <3.5 False advertising by Redline eh??
 
Messages
2,095
Location
IL
Thanks Leo. I asked a similar question in the HTHS thread in QOTD section. So do you know for sure that there is a significant difference in the results of D4741 and D4683? Is D4683 more demanding or somehow otherwise yeilds lower numbers? Obviously you are saying (at least in case of Red Line) there is a difference of at least .4 between the two methods. TooSlick must have missed that then, because he was pretty impressed with RL's HTHS. If you are right then it is nothing special. Also you are saying that ACEA in the A3-98 spec used D4741 because the RL bottle previously listed that spec... Can't find my page that had the old specs... and the current one lists a CEC-L-36-A-97 spec. [ December 02, 2003, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Jason Troxell ]
 
Messages
34,044
Location
Southern NJ
And Amsoil's S2k has a HT/HS of 3.4 so how can it be A3 rated? With A3, it's mainly a viscosity issue @100c. Thicker the the oil, usually above 11.4 cSt you will have an A3 rated oil.
 
Messages
5,785
Location
Dixie
Jason, I looked up the protocols for these two ASTM tests several weeks back, since you got me thinking about it. The test temp (150C) and shear rate of 100,000 cycles/second are the same for both tests. The ASTM (American Society for Testing of Materials), redesignates their test #'s on a regular basis, which is very confusing for some people .... I believe the Redline numbers, due to the fact that they are using thicker basestocks with little or no VI modifier. The key part of the ACEA "A3/B4" specs is that the engine sequence tests are much longer duration that those for GF-3, and the limits for wear, deposits and oil degradation are more stringent. Meeting ACEA "B4" requires testing in three different types of automotive diesel engines (Peugeot/Mercedes/VW). Passing the "B4" tests requires higher detergency and contaminent dispersion. This feature is also highly desirable in any extended drain oil.
 
Messages
2,095
Location
IL
Right, but RL still says A5 and the only difference between A5 and A3 is HTHS. D4741 uses a "tapered plug" and D4683 uses "tapered bearing" according to ASTM's descriptions. Does that matter?
 

Leo

Messages
911
Location
Australia
ASTM 4741 = CEC-L-36-A-90 <---- Redline's Test ASTM 4683 = CEC-L-36-A-97 <---- ACEA Spec These specs could indeed be similar but I cannot find enough infomation to conclued the numbers are directly comparable. Logic would state this would not be true. Also what is worth to note is that Redline have NOT stated the shear rate used in the HTHS test. Most manufacturers always state 150C @ 1,500,000/s. Redline have never stated rate they use in any literature I've come across. It could be 1,000,000/s for all I know, giving inflated HTHS numbers. Btw, Im not trying to Redline bash, but just verifying to see if their HTHS #s are the real deal. [ December 02, 2003, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Leo ]
 
Messages
666
Location
Triad, NC
Sorry, but yes they have. Their US web site is outdated and up for a review soon. They will send you the new spec sheet including the new viscosities upon request, or just go to their Australian web site ( http://www.redlineoil.com.au/Uploads/Downloads/tech%20dataweb%20Eng%20ALL%20002.pdf ) where the new spec sheet incl. HT/HS is already available. H#ll, you should know that ....... you're from down under. 5W-40 looks promising!!
quote:
Also what is worth to note is that Redline have NOT stated the shear rate used in the HTHS test. Most manufacturers always state 150C @ 1,500,000/s. Redline have never stated rate they use in any literature I've come across. It could be 1,000,000/s for all I know, giving inflated HTHS numbers. Btw, Im not trying to Redline bash, but just verifying to see if their HTHS #s are the real deal. [/QB]
[ December 03, 2003, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Alex D ]
 

Leo

Messages
911
Location
Australia
AlexD, that PDF does not state the shear rate Redline used in the measurement of the HTHS. Only the temp. That is the question I am asking. So.... read my post carefully!!!! [Smile] Maybe an email to Redline is in order! [ December 03, 2003, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Leo ]
 
Messages
5,785
Location
Dixie
Jason, The test conditions are the same ...a temp of 150C/302F and a shear rate of 1,000,000 reciprocal seconds, ie 1/10-6(exp) sec.
 

Leo

Messages
911
Location
Australia
Hahah yeah I found that out, conditions are the same but the equipement are still different! Thus techically you still cant compare Redlines HTHS to anyone else who uses D4683 to measure HTHS. Thus this is probably IMO why Redline did not meet A3.
 
Top