Redline vs Mobil 1, any real difference?

[f355spider]

If a P-style gasket oil filter is not tightened down enough to make the can basically bottom out on the filter seat, the chances of the gasket blowing out is much higher. Ref post in oil filter forum - LINK

Then they may have not properly updated the instructions on the can. Regardless UFI recalled all of the filters and returned to the original design spec. My point is I would not trust any UFI filter design change until proven in the field...especially when made in a different factory and a different country.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Easier to go back to the flat gasket design than try to make sure everyone correctly installs a filter with a P-style gasket.

 

[f355spider]

^^^ Easier to go back to the flat gasket design than try to make sure everyone correctly installs a filter with a P-style gasket.

I was active on a Ferrari email chat board and people were cranking them down, it really didn't make a difference. They could have avoided a recall and simply updated their instructions on the can and the box. Ferrari could have issued a TSB, if that were the case.

There is a guy on there, Steve Magnusson who did all the measurements (he's a mechanical engineer)...it was clear the groove was too shallow and the gasket too tall (gasket was D shaped, not P shaped)..so there was too much gasket unsupported was his analysis (softer gasket material too). Also the seal groove is about 1 cm inside from the outer ridge of the can. And the outer ridge is higher by a few mm than the inner groove, so you are limited how tight the seal will be, as the can will bottom out before the inner seal and groove supporting it. So more of a design flaw than incorrect instructions. This was all 25 years ago, so this stuff is only now coming back to me...

Ferrari and UFI took them all back.

I found the recall:
FERRARI
Ferrari North America
Models: Oil Filter 111782
Number Involved: 2,790
Dates of Manufacture: May 2000 - May 2001

Defect:
Some replacement oil filters (Ferrari Part No. 111782) were made in a
different manner from the original version. As a result, the oil
filter may leak engine oil from the seal ring area. In the presence of
an ignition source, the engine oil could be ignited, causing a vehicle
fire, possibly resulting in personal injury or death. These oil
filters can be used on Ferrari model vehicles dating back to the
1960s.
The model vehicles these filters can be used on are:
Dino 206 GT, Dino 246 GT/GTS, Dino 308 GT4, 208 GTB/GTS turbo, 208
GT4, 208 GTB/GTS turbo intercooler, GTB/GTS turbo, 275 GTB4, 308 GT4,
308 GTB/GTS, 308i GTB/GTS, 328 GTB/GTS, 330 GT, 330 GTC, 365 GT, 365
GT4, 365 GT4BB, 365 GTC (1970), 365 GTC/GTS, 365 GTC4, 365 GTS4, 400I
GT/GTA, 4000 GT/GTA, 412 GT/GTA, 512BB, 512i BB, Mondial 3.2, Mondial
3.2 Cabriolet, Mondial 8, Mondial 9 Cabriolet, Mondial 4V, 288 GTO.
Remedy:
Dealers will replace the oil filters with a new style of oil filter
having a Ferrari part number of 191993, free of charge. The
manufacturer has reported that notification began Oct. 12, 2001.
Owners who do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time
should contact Ferrari at 1-201-816-2600.
[NHTSA Recall No. 01E051]

 

[stash80]

I have a 1985 Ferrari Mondial QV with a flat tappet engine. I will need to do an oil change in the next couple of weeks. Would there really be any benefit in switching from Mobil 1 15w50 to redline 10w50? I do drive the car rather hard and frequently cruise at speeds of between 100-120 mph where the RPMs set between 5000-6000. The engine redline is 7k. The oil temps rarely exceed 210F.

Redline is significantly more expensive, and its availability much less, but if it would significantly reduce engine wear it would absolutely be worth the price. If the real world difference is negligible then I might be better off sticking with Mobil 1.

Are you getting poor results with the Mobil 1? Are you doing UOA? When you are asking about a benefit, it infers you are not happy with what you are using.

 

[ChristianReske]

I would try to buy a PURFLUX oil filter.

 

[mechengineer60]

Viscosity is the main factor in keeping moving parts separated and from rubbing on each other and causing wear. Viscosity has always been the backbone of Trbology ever since hydrodynamic lubrication was fully understood 120 years ago by Renolds.

The Stribeck Curve has a viscosiy factor involved. When just the viscosity is increased (other factors held constant) the operating points on the Stribeck Curve shift to the right, which means film thickness increases between moving parts and wear decreases. Sure, the AF/AW additives are better now, but the sacrificial tribofilm is only useful when the film thickness fails to give adequate parts separation. And the tribofilm can only do so much, so viscosity is (should be) the main wear mitigating factor. With all factors involved held constant, more HTHS viscosiy gives more film thickness and more wear protection.

Ferrari doesn't spec thin oil because they know owners may push them hard. Same with Ford, GM, Dodge, etc that make high HP performance cars. But some believe they can achieve the same level of engine protection by going two grades lower and still use the car hard because oil temps might be lower. If that was the case, all high HP engines (most of which already have an oil cooler) would be running xW-20 or less.

Well we know 40 years ago Ferrari put a spec on the oil at 10W50. I think you have underplayed how much better the film strength is now than oil 40+ years ago and appear to be going with the line only viscosity matters and not the quality of the oil/film strength etc, if they(Ferrari) had today's oil could they have gone for lower viscosity, which then goes to the answer to what the enquiry was about.
I do acknowledge that indeed that the clearances may have been designed to run on higher viscosity with the oil at the time to provide the necessary wear protection and that this would be critical in many areas including piston rings to bore clearance and that may the biggest issue in having to run the same thickness/viscosity oil rather than the film strength protective qualities.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Well we know 40 years ago Ferrari put a spec on the oil at 10W50. I think you have underplayed how much better the film strength is now than oil 40+ years ago and appear to be going with the line only viscosity matters and not the quality of the oil/film strength etc, if they(Ferrari) had today's oil could they have gone for lower viscosity, which then goes to the answer to what the enquiry was about.

What's your definition of "film strength", because if you go down that rabbit hole there are different ways of describing it. There is no standard defined measurement of "film strength".

Here's an article in Machinery Lubrication that basically says the "film strength" is the AF/AW tribofilm on the surfaces that mitigates wear when the film thickness (due to viscosity) can't keep parts fully separated. It will always be true that more viscosity gives more film thickness which keeps moving parts better separated, and therefore less rubbing and wear. Viscosity will always be the main factor in keeping parts separated and mitigating wear. As mentioned before, it's not ideal to rely more and more on the AF/AW tribofilm if you don't have to.

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30835/lubricant-film-strength

Other definitions of "film strength" are basic like these two below, and viscosity (specifically the HTHS viscosity) is a major factor in maintaining an adequate oil film, and therefore "film strength":

"The ability of a lubricating oil to maintain a continuous, load-bearing lubricating film between moving surfaces under operating conditions, preventing direct metal-to-metal contact."

"The lubricant's ability to resist rupture of the lubricating film and continue separating moving surfaces under load, thereby minimizing wear and preventing scuffing or seizure."

I do acknowledge that indeed that the clearances may have been designed to run on higher viscosity with the oil at the time to provide the necessary wear protection and that this would be critical in many areas including piston rings to bore clearance and that may the biggest issue in having to run the same thickness/viscosity oil rather than the film strength protective qualities.

Piston rings are always under spring pressure and pushing against the cylinder walls, so the "ring to bore clearance" doesn't really change between engines. Journal bearings have been the same basic clearance for decades. Ford Coyote V8s can run as low as 0.0005 inch per one inch of journal diameter, and still run xW-50 grade oil - that's what Ford specs in their Track Pack V8s. Make the bearing clearance any tighter than that 0.0005 per inch of journal diameter and the bearing could start running too hot and eventually fail. Tight bearings can run thicker oil just fine (it will still give more MOFT), but looser bearings will suffer if low viscosity oil is used - ie, the MOFT falls off fast if clearance increases too much.

Anyone thinking they should go a grade or two thinner in a high HP engine used in severe use conditions because the oil temps might be lower are not doing their engine any favors.