Refrigerant Oil POE test

[Terry]

This site isn't about believe and faith in oil brands but tested oils in real life applications.

Spectro UOA's are what most of us can afford and if interpreted correctly are extremely useful and can be correlated to proprietary data that some may have in their heads and data bases......

The largest reason that you might have concern about Redlines chemistry is that you may not understand what you read on an oil analysis result.

Arguing about what you don't know and speculating on opinion does not make this board what it should be.

IMO( yes an opinion but one founded on a few years of messing with this stuff) Redline's oil tech department and Roy Howell ( who I respect) do not know how to intepret basic Spectro oil analysis without lubrizol showing them the same test in fancy high cost format.

Like most chemists and engineers.

Let those that know the science post more. Less data and more science would be a blessing here.

Understand that many can't because they are under secrecy or employer restrictions or are busy making a living with knowledge they cannot afford to give away on a web board.

By all means ask questions but please everyone post less and study more.

Molakule,Rick20,Labman,Ted Kublin, and others here have posted absolute GOLD when it comes to tribology and lube technology, embedded here at BITOG. Read the science and leave the petty stuff somewhere else.

 

[buster]

Terry with all due respect, if we let those that know science post more, we'd have about 3 people posting.

I believe this guy is from LE. Talks about testing they did on Redline. Comments are welcome. I'll take any criticism on opinions that are thrown at me and have no problem raising questions on here. What is this site for? Also, I think many scratch their heads wondering why they paid $8qt for RL when ohter oils do as well. That is the issue. I'd like to see RL show more testing of their products.

quote:

---

John, I have found some info on testing with Redline. First three oils were sampled and analyzed. All oils were Red Line, 10w30, 10w40,and 20w50. The tests run were the Falex pin and Vee Wear Test and the Thin Film Oxidation Update Test (TFOUT). These tests are good comparative tools to evaluate different motor oils. The infrared Analysis confirms that the Redline oils are all ester-based products. The base numbers are all above nine and the viscosity's are normal for the viscosity ranges claimed for each product. Elemental Analysis on the three oil samples showed the same chemistry in each of the samples. This is a predominately calcium based detergent package with a heavy dose of Moly. Two things arise from these elements. First, a high calcium along with the high levels of magnesium, phosphorus and zinc suggests that these oils are a rather high ash type engine oil, which may be prone to deposit formation. The presence of Moly indicates the presence of a moly disulfide type compound used for friction modification and wear prevention. Moly compounds have had difficulty with thermal stability and becoming corrosive above 750 deg F. Moly has a history of problems in engine oils that may be also present in these oils based on the presence of moly. In the past, I think you'll agree that engine temperatures in the ring belt area may exceed the thermal stability limits for moly compounds.

In the Falex Pin and Vee Wear Test, both the 10w30 and 20w50 oils showed five teeth of wear. The 10w40 product showed four teeth of wear LE 8800 15w40 oil showed similar wear on the same test. This shows that there is very little difference between the LE and the Redline engine oils for wear purposes.

The TFOUT test however, the Redline product failed miserably, This failure is related to the type of base stock used in these products. As we stated earlier, this is a polyolester product, which has difficulty handling water and moisture , In the TFOUT tests, these products did not show a pressure drop on the Rotary Bomb used to conduct the test. After sixteen hours, the bomb was disassembled and there wes a very heavily oxidized residue remaining in the test jar.

Experience with this test tells us that products formulated with esters have a chemical reaction occurring during the test which consumes oxygen as expected, but the chemical reaction also produces water vapor and other gases at approximately the same rate as the oxpgen is consumed. The result is a nil pressure drop. However, the water vapor and hear in the test severely degrade and oxidize the ester causing a total failure of the oil. This is a detrimental feature of these oils in that in an engine under short run conditions where the engine may not heat up completely. there is a great deal of moisture produced. This moisture will effect the ester base and cause rapid significant oxidation of the oil.

Overall, we feel that the Redline products, while exhibiting good wear protection in the Falex Test, are not well balanced products and would have difficulties performing in long drain service due to their susceptibility to oxidation and degradation. The high calcium chemistry does not give the total base number longevity that is seen in the predominantly magnesium chemistry of the LE 8800 and the Moly may also be a source of potential corrosion and thermal instability in these Redline engine oils.

Sorry the posting was so long but I'm writing it off the Lab analysis results.

PS. An article written in the SAE magazine a few years back said that the use of Moly in concentrations above 200 ppm caused excess wear on the NTC 400test by Cummins. The article was called Reduced Durability due to a Friction Modifier in Heavy Duty Diesel Lubricants. by R.D. Hercamp of Cummins Engine co. Inc.

Sincerely, Kevin Dinwiddie

---

[ April 30, 2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
Terry with all due respect, if we let those that know science post more, we'd have about 3 people posting.

I believe this guy is from LE. Talks about testing they did on Redline. Comments are welcome. I'll take any criticism on opinions that are thrown at me and have no problem raising questions on here. What is this site for? Also, I think many scratch their heads wondering why they paid $8qt for RL when ohter oils do as well. That is the issue. I'd like to see RL show more testing of their products.

---

But hasn't this guy missed the boat when it comes to the TYPE of moly being used in Redline and virtually every other modern oil that uses it? And he references that same article about moly and Cummins engines which was clearly dealing with the solid type moly.

 

[buster]

The Moly in RL,M1 Schaeffer's is Moly dithiocarbamate and doesn't settle out. I was more focused on the negative aspects of POE rather then the Moly-corrosion aspects he raised. I do think he is refering to the other moly that RL doesn't use.

 

[ekpolk]

Terry:

Obviously, I'm very new here, but I'd like to offer my perspective, FWIW. Compared to some other boards out there, this one is really good. It generates a lot of very fascinating and educational discussion.

I agree that totally unscientific and personal negative stuff have no place, as they add little or no value to the info exchange. At the other extreme, if input is in some way rigidly limited by some "sceintific" threshold, then I'd think you're going to end up with a fairly dull, circular self-congratulation forum.

In the end, I think we have to trust member's judgment to exercise the nebulously vague, correct degree of self-control. Yes, I'm very aware that some won't, and some will even need to be "disciplined" externally. In the short month that I've been here, I've learned a great deal from postings and responses which, from a purely sceintific perspective, are hopeless. I can only respectfully ask you senior members and hard-core scientists to be patient with the rest of us. Most of us are here to learn and trade ideas in good faith. Thanks again to all of you who've built BITOG into what it is.

 

[RobY]

The goal of the work Buster was pointed to was to determine the mechanism of reaction between iron surfaces and POE lubricants. If the mechanism is understood, better lubricants can be developed to improve stability. There is no evidence the current POEs are not doing the job, but any increase in potential reliability justifies the research.

For the data junkies, here is an excerpt from the ASHRAE report on refrigeration POEs. This part is more relevant to the general use of ester lubricants, and is not specific to refrigeration uses. Welcome the world of systems chemistry ....

--------------------------------------------------

POLYOLESTERS THERMAL DEGRADATION REACTIONS

In contrast to the recent use of polyolesters for use in refrigeration applications, the use of polyolesters in aircraft engine environments has been studied for over 50 years (Cuellar, 1977). A wide range of tests have been used to study the effects of metals on the thermal degradation of polyolesters.

Cuellar (1977) used a stainless steel rotating cylinder to heat trimethylopropane triheptanoate (TMP-THP) to 343°C (650°F) in dry and moist nitrogen atmospheres. Temperatures above 315°C (600°F) were required to increase the acid content (n-heptanoic acid) of the bulk ester and the amount of acids was increased by the presence of water. However, Cuellar (1977) reported that the majority of the n-heptanoic acid was concentrated in the cold trap (nitrogen flow) and the stainless steel cylinder did not experience residue buildup or corrosion.

A series of studies by Cvitkovic (1979), Klaus (1970) and Naidu (1988) used the Penn State microreactor to evaluate the thermal stabilities of polyolesters as thin films on metal catalysts. The heated esters were tested as films to increase the metal to ester ratio, and presumably, to increase the catalytic effects of metal on ester thermal degradation. However, Cvitkovic (1979) reported no significant thermal degradation of TMP-THP heated from 175°C (347°F) up to 250°C (482°F) on aluminum and low carbon steel surfaces in a 20 mL per minute nitrogen flow. Naidu (1988) also heated films of TMP-THP in a 20 mL per minute nitrogen flow on the metal catalyst. Naidu (1988) monitored thermal degradation using gel permeation chromatography to detect molecular weight changes in the stressed ester and reported that low carbon steel slightly increased thermal degradation in comparison to copper or aluminum catalysts in the temperature range of 200°C (392°F) to 250°C (482°F). In contrast to Cvitkovic (1979) and Naidu (1988), Klaus (1970) heated a wide range of esters using a static nitrogen atmosphere to allow analysis of the volatile degradation by-products. The presence of combined metal catalysts (M-10 steel, 52-100 steel and Naval Bronze) did not affect the decomposition rates of dibasic esters at 315°C (600°F). However, the combined catalysts greatly increased the degradation rate of TMP-THP and pentaerythritol esters at 315°C (600°F) and the catalysts experienced weight losses in the following decreasing order: 52-100 steel > M-10 steel >> Naval Bronze. Klaus (1970) also reported that the presence of the metal catalysts greatly increased the system pressure [assumed to be hydrogen and carbon dioxide - later verified by Naidu (1988)].

Naidu (1988) also reported that in previous research by Klaus (1970), the TMP-THP decomposed in the presence of low carbon steel to produce n-heptanoic acid and a product similar to weight to trimethylol propane diheptanoate, i.e., TMP triester (THP) loss a carboxylic acid (HP) to produce diester (DHP). Klaus (1970) also reported that constant volume systems (the liquid degradation products remain in contact with the heated ester and steel catalyst) increased the rate of degradation (measured the rate of ester depletion and metal weight loss which were comparable) versus constant pressure systems (products allowed to escape to maintain atmospheric pressure). Of the esters tested by Klaus (1970), dimethyl sebacate and methyl laurate (no b carbon on alcohol) had much higher thermal stability than TMP-THP and pentaerythritol esters (have b carbon but no b hydrogen) and underwent minor degradation at 371°C (700°F) with or without metal catalysts, i.e., thermal stability and degradation mechanism similar to hydrocarbon.

Blake (1961) used a static isoteniscope (closed system) to monitor the vapor pressure of compounds heated under nitrogen. Blake (1961) defined the decomposition point as the temperature at which 10% decomposition occurred using a heating rate of 4°C per minute. Blake (1961) reported that the addition of a 52-100 steel coupon to the isoteniscope decreased the decomposition point of the esters: bis (2-ethylhexyl) sebacate (b hydrogen) from 283 to 227°C, bis (1-methylcyclohexylmethyl) sebacate (no b hydrogen) from 328 to 295°C and TMP-THP (no b hydrogen) from 317 to 256°C. The presence of 52-100 steel had no effect on the decomposition point of the hydrocarbon octacosane (347 to 350°C).

Cottington (1969) performed thermal tests in sealed glass cells (closed system) of various unidentified esters at 260°C (500°F) with and without the metal catalysts: AMS-5504 steel, mild steel and high purity iron. For every ester/metal combination, the ester degradation rate increased (carboxylic acids increased) in the presence of the metal and the catalyst experienced weight loss. The presence of the metal catalysts did not affect the thermal degradation of white petroleum oil.
Jones (1970) performed thermal tests in sealed mild steel capsules (closed system) of pentaerythritol tetracaproate (PE - TC) ester at 260°C (500°F). The evolution of hydrogen (carboxylic acid reacts with steel surface to form carboxylate and hydrogen) through the steel wall into an evacuated chamber was used to monitor the reaction rate of the ester degradation. After 24 hours at 260°C (500°F), a dark, resinous solid was observed on the steel walls. After 96 hours of heating at 260°C (500°F), Jones (1970) reported the remaining solid contained fine, carbonaceous materials and gas buildup (assumed to be carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide since hydrogen would pass through steel). Jones (1970) also reported that FeO and µ Fe2O3 increased PE - TC ester degradation in glass cells but to a much lesser degree than a steel surface.

The references describing polyolester thermal degradation reactions support the following observations:

1. Closed systems (increased pressure) that increase the contact of the liquid degradation products with the polyolester/metal surface increased the rates of degradation in comparison to open systems that allow liquid products to escape.

2. Mild steels, cast iron and iron surfaces increase the thermal degradation rates of polyolesters while stainless steel, glass and brass surfaces do not affect the degradation rates of polyolesters. Ferrous and ferric oxides slightly accelerate polyolester thermal degradation with respect to glass.

3. Thermal degradation of polyolesters is rapid at 250°C (392°F) in the presence of mild steel and iron surfaces producing hydrogen and/or carbon dioxide gaseous products, carboxylic acids and metal catalyst corrosion products

4. The presence of iron containing catalysts does not affect the thermal degradation rates of hydrocarbon oils.

5. Measuring the pressure increase in a closed system, hydrogen through steel walls or gases inside a glass system, would provide continuous monitoring of the thermal degradation process. Gas chromatographic analysis of the remaining polyolester, titration or ionic chromatography of the produced carboxylic acids, analysis of the gaseous products (hydrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide) and trace metal analysis of the heated polyolester or weight loss of the metal catalyst would allow periodic trending of the reaction rate and identification of degradation products/reaction mechanisms.

 

[TooSlick]

This paper is discussing corrosive attack on Ferrous, ie "Iron Bearing", materials at elevated temps with POE based lubricants....

Redline consistently shows very low "hard metal" wear, particularly after it's been run several times in a row, so I'm not sure this refrigerant situation is relevant at all. The levels of Fe,Cr, Ni and even Al are generally low to very low in the RL UOA's I've reviewed.

The only potential concern I have about Redline is that it reacts fairly strongly to some of the softer bearing alloys used by specific manufacturers. This really depends on the metallurgy of the particular bearings used. For example, the harder VW/Audi and Toyota bearings appear to be unaffected by the Redline chemistry and show very low bearing wear. By contrast, some Honda/Acura engines show fairly high Pb and Cu levels even after multiply runs with RL.

I actually think the presence of Cu is due to an oxide layer being formed on the surface of Cu based parts - like the cores of oil coolers - and really isn't wear in the conventional sense. Most of the times the high Cu is accompanied by little or no Sn, which would indicate wear from bronze bushings or cam bearings.

My understanding is that as MoDTC is consumed, it is at least partially converted to MoS2 and that some of the corrosive wear may be due to this chemical reaction. I also think the presence of 500-700 ppm of moly and the generation of suphur compounds likely causes the TBN to drop more quickly than it would otherwise.

On the plus side, Redline is very resistant to shearing and oxidative thickening - the latter is key in maintaining very low deposit formation. It also provides very low oil consumption, low internal friction and holds up well in high temp,high load applications. It may not be the lowest cost lube solution for the typical "grocery getter", but I can certainly think of many applications where it would work well ....

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

1. Closed systems (increased pressure) that increase the contact of the liquid degradation products with the polyolester/metal surface increased the rates of degradation in comparison to open systems that allow liquid products to escape.

---

A closed system, such as a refrigerant system, might be a concern for non-dehydrated polyesters, but for an open system, such as an automotive engine, should not. But most fluids for refrigerant systems, whether they be mineral, PAO, glycol ether esters, or POE's have to be dehydrated for refrigerant use because they WILL be used in a closed system for many years.

Also, please pay attention to the temps used to measure Fe-polyolester interactions, most are way above that encountered in the sump. Any oil that gets past the top ring or to the crown is going to vaporize leaving behind "something."

quote:

---

The infrared Analysis confirms that the Redline oils are all ester-based products.

---

I doubt this statement since I had yet to find anyone who can determine complex HC spectra with just an IR.


If Redline uptook as much moisture as LE claims, wouldn't we see high moisture %'s, high TAN's, ?

Let's assume for argument that Redline's POE does so; what I think we should see in a Redline UOA is a high rate of TBN nosedive to 1.0 or less and stay there. What we see is a gradual decrease and a settling out of the TBN and no moisture being reported out of the ordinary.

One has to remember that even TMP and POE polyolesters have a limit just as mineral oils and POA's do, but their decomposition limits are reached at a much higher temperature than any of these fluids mentioned.

quote:

---

4. The presence of iron containing catalysts does not affect the thermal degradation rates of hydrocarbon oils.

---

And I have seen Tech papers reporting just the opposite.

 

[RobY]

MolaKule - the statement about mineral oils is based only on white petroleum oils. They are likely to be more stable than most mineral oil bases.

By the way, moisture is not the main problem you indicate in refrigeration systems. Local heating of the POE at a wear surface is the main cause of problems, and this is usually the result of lack of lubricant supply at that surface. Moisture does need to be controlled to reasonable levels, but is not ususally the root cause of system failures. Excessive temperature is the problem to control.

The ASHRAE project was done by an expert on POE use in aircraft engines. He is well versed in the history of POE use and has access to most of the military research data. Some of the references are from his own work (as should be expected).

I may have confused some by not pointing out most of the stability studies above were done on pure POE basestocks only. A formulated lubricant will behave differently. Here is another excerpt on the additives used to increase stability of POEs with ferrous metals. Most refrigeration POEs will not contain TCP, but one compressor manufacturer (Tecumseh)uses TCP in every compressor at a 2% dose level to avoid POE - iron reactions.

------------------------------------------------

ADDITIVES TO INHIBIT THE POLYOLESTER REACTION WITH FERROUS METALS

Several of the references also evaluated the capabilities of different additives to inhibit the catalytic effects of metals on the thermal degradation of polyolesters. The additives discussed in the references inhibit the metal catalytic effect by either passivating the metal surface or neutralizing the produced carboxylic acids, i.e., the additives inhibit the interaction of the polyolester and generated carboxylic acids with the metal surface, respectively.

Tricresyl phosphate (TCP) is the most studied metal passivator in the identified references and is currently used in commercial polyolester based oils used in refrigeration and jet engine applications. Cottington (1969) reports that 1% TCP in the polyolester inhibits the catalytic effect of steel and iron catalysts (sealed glass cell) at 260°C (500°F). Steel coupons previously heated with polyolester containing 5% TCP did not catalyze the thermal degradation of neat polyolesters (0% TCP) in subsequent tests at 260°C (500°F). Cottington (1969) also states that if carboxylic acids or water are present in the polyolester, the addition of TCP must be accompanied by the addition of alkyl amines to neutralize the resulting strong acids. Jones (1970) performed the polyolester thermal degradation tests in sealed steel capsules and required 10% TCP to inhibit the production of hydrogen (carboxylic acid reaction with steel wall) for 96 hours at 260°C (500°F). The TCP did not inhibit the hydrogen evolution of the polyolester containing 10% TCP for the first four hours. Subsequent analyses by Jones (1970) of the stressed steel capsule walls indicated that the TCP had formed a protective, passivating coating of Fe3O4 and FePO4 on the steel wall [Godfrey (1965) also reports that TCP creates Fe3PO4 films]. Jones (1970) also reports that TCP is unable to inhibit the catalytic effects of ferric toluate at 210°C (500°F). Kauffman (1982) reports that 3% TCP present in the polyolester based MIL-L-23699 aircraft engine oils was capable of inhibiting the catalytic effects of iron powder, but not magnesium powder, on the thermal degradation of the pentaerythritol ester basestock at 240°C for 4 hours.

In addition to passivating static steel coupons and walls, TCP has also been studied as an antiwear additive for polyolesters on wear test rigs. In the boundary lubrication regime (asperity contact) of the wear test rigs, Takesue (1998) and Yamamoto (1998) report that 0.5% TCP had no beneficial effect on the poor wear results of polyolesters with R-134a refrigerant (corrosive wear rate faster than protective film formation). The addition of TCP (% TCP not stated) did improve the antiwear properties of polyvinylethers and polyalkylene glycols with R-134a refrigerant (Yamamoto, 1998).

In addition to the metal passivation by TCP, additives to inhibit the thermal degradation of polyolesters through neutralization of generated carboxylic acids have been reported. Gryglewicz (1997) reports that an additive based on amines neutralized with aliphatic phosphate minimized the corrosion of both steel and copper coupons through neutralization of generated carboxylic acids. Shimomura (2001) reports that 0.2% glycidyl-2,2-dimethyl octanoate and cyclohexaneoxide (epoxide group in each molecule reacts with acid) in polyolesters stabilized the esters for 2000 hours at 200°C (392°F) in the presence of aluminum, copper and iron catalyst.
The references indicate that metal passivation (TCP) will inhibit the polyolester reaction with iron surfaces in static situations but not in high wear situations where nascent iron surfaces are constantly being produced. The research indicates that the TCP inhibits the polyolester thermal degradation reaction by forming a layer of Fe3O4 and FePO4 on the iron surface.
The references also indicate that acid neutralizers (amines, epoxy compounds) will also inhibit the polyolester reaction with iron surfaces. The acid neutralizers react with carboxylic acids present in the polyolester (generated by hydrolysis, thermal breakdown, prior oxidation, etc.) inhibiting the acid reaction/corrosion of the iron surface.

 

[buster]

I don't see why people are getting bent out of shape over this. Fact is, many on here are skeptical of Redline and I think the more discussion about it, helps us understand it. There are only a select few that post here that can refute what I posted above, like Molekule.

There are many people that have run RL then another brand and had better results with the other brand. Now lets look at this. Dave G will say UOAs are not good ways of comparing oils. Well if you believe that, then stop doing UOAs and stop worrying about .0002 differences in wear. With Redline, there are cases where Pb is 20 vs 5 for another brand. That is rather significant IMO and one reason I hesitate using it. Tooslick's comment about bearings I believe is right from what we've seen.

Then we have several THEORIES on RL that are all very possible. Scavenger theory, cleaning theory, Pb reaction theory and corrosion theories. Any of these coulc be true and more then one as well. Cost comes up as well as a factor yet, many high end oils like S2k racing oils, M1R and Synergyn are all PAO + POE, not all POE, like RL claims their oil is. The levels of Moly RL uses are insane as well. I'm sure it's great if your drag racing, but again, it could be an uncessary chemistry used for most vehicles. So I'm not out to bash RL, but simply further the debate/discussion about it and understand it better. I have found though, the more I read, the more I find many are skeptical of it's formulation. Amsoil/M1/Synergyn could easily make a POE based oil for their S2k/M1R racing oils, but chose a different path.

[ April 30, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[slider]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
I don't see why people are getting bent out of shape over this.

---

Your initial choice of the name of the thread didn't help.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Your initial choice of the name of the thread didn't help

---

OK, I'll give you that. I'm glad it was changed. It wasn't appropriate.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

By the way, moisture is not the main problem you indicate in refrigeration systems. Local heating of the POE at a wear surface is the main cause of problems, and this is usually the result of lack of lubricant supply at that surface. Moisture does need to be controlled to reasonable levels, but is not ususally the root cause of system failures. Excessive temperature is the problem to control.

---

Thanks for clarification RobyR.

If you read papers on the history of the research of Jet Engine Lubricants you will see that they read very much like what is seen in your last post.

Insufficient lubrication, and not the lubricant itself, has always been shown to be a root cause of failure.

My feeling is that while this ASHRAE report is interesting, it bears little analogy to the mechanism of Redline's chemistry, and Redline's soft metal showing. Redline knows what's going on, but may not be able to state the mechanism due to proprietary issues.

RObyR: If you would please, keep us up to date on the latest findings if you can.

 

[buster]

These are the 4 main points that caught my interest. The Moly part is either the wrong Moly (not the one used in M1/Schaeffer's etc.,dithiocarbamate) or levels over 200ppm is causing problems, is how I take that. Number 2.) is questionable bc I'm not aware of moisture being present and like Molekule said, wouldn't it show via a UOA? Again, it's a LE paper and it's what THEY found. However, these same arguments are similarly shared by Mobil, Amsoil and Synergyn. My personal opinion is that RL excells as a racing oil under severe stress. It's long drain capabilities I suspect are not as good as Amsoil/M1. The 3MP should be good.


1.) Moly compounds have had difficulty with thermal stability and becoming corrosive above 750 deg F. Moly has a history of problems in engine oils that may be also present in these oils based on the presence of moly. In the past, I think you'll agree that engine temperatures in the ring belt area may exceed the thermal stability limits for moly compounds.

2.)The TFOUT test however, the Redline product failed miserably, This failure is related to the type of base stock used in these products. As we stated earlier, this is a polyolester product, which has difficulty handling water and moisture , In the TFOUT tests, these products did not show a pressure drop on the Rotary Bomb used to conduct the test. After sixteen hours, the bomb was disassembled and there wes a very heavily oxidized residue remaining in the test jar.

3.)Experience with this test tells us that products formulated with esters have a chemical reaction occurring during the test which consumes oxygen as expected, but the chemical reaction also produces water vapor and other gases at approximately the same rate as the oxpgen is consumed. The result is a nil pressure drop. However, the water vapor and hear in the test severely degrade and oxidize the ester causing a total failure of the oil. This is a detrimental feature of these oils in that in an engine under short run conditions where the engine may not heat up completely. there is a great deal of moisture produced. This moisture will effect the ester base and cause rapid significant oxidation of the oil.

4.)Moly may also be a source of potential corrosion and thermal instability in these Redline engine oils.

 

[JohnBrowning]

No one is getting bent out of shape buster. I just think that their is a lot of Redline bashing from very few people that actualy run it. Most that do run it only run it once and call it quites. You can not bash Redlines use of esters without bashing Amsoil's early work and their new 2000 and 3000 formulations,Synergen uses esters, so does Delvac 1, Torco and Penrite as well as Motul,Fusch(sp)and we speculate that the golden child of the board German Castrol is also ester based.

Esters have been used for years to sweeten oil in train and power station useage. In europe various esters are being added to help clean up train engines and powerstations equipment.

I am not even running a synthetic oil right now! I am useing conventional oils for the warm months. So it is not like I am brand loyal. I like all synthetics diebasic,TMP,TME,PAO, and even quality conventional oils etc..... I just find it almost crazy to think that in this day and age any oil blender that is not a fly by night operation would put out anything that would cause corrisive damage or excessive wear.

Last I checked Amsoil and Redlines chief chemists/tribologists worked for Lubrizol at one point? Exon Mobil makes a lot of ester base stocks and also makes a motor oil with 26% TMP or TME base stock. I am preety sure EM would not put a corrisive product into a commercial engine enviroment were one good law suite could really hurt.

All I am trying to say is lets not toss the baby out with the bath water just yet!

To me this type of unfounded extrapolation is not to far off from the "Mobil-1 15W50 Blows Engines" topic.

I also agree that even if we can not agree on oils it is hard to not like Redlines MTL,MT90, C+ATF and Gear Lubes!!

P.S. buster with the title you put on this post you should consider writeing titles for the local News Paper or the National Enquirer.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

You can not bash Redlines use of esters without bashing Amsoil's early work and their new 2000 and 3000 formulations,Synergen uses esters, so does Delvac 1, Torco and Penrite as well as Motul,Fusch(sp)and we speculate that the golden child of the board German Castrol is also ester based.

---

JB, I bet it got your attention though didn't it?

John, I'm not bashing RL. I'm trying to understand why UOAs are poor. PAO based oils have shown better wear then Redline, period. PAO based oils also contain POE basestocks, only in smaller percentages. On the one hand, some think RL has some PAO, on the other, Dave G said it's all PAO. Redline is also the only oil that uses 500ppm of Moly, which seems to be completely overkill. Primus also posted an interesting study that showed all ester based lubes having VERY high corrosion. So it could just be that RL is all POE. Why doesn't Delvac 1 show high wear?

Decide for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I'm sure RL excells under severe circumstances. I've also seen M1/Amsoil hold up very well also. There are many out there that don't agree with RL's approach. If cost were the issue as I said before, then M1R/S2k oils would be mostly POE. They aren't.

I'd like to see more proof of how good RL is. Not theories on it. Redline has no comparison charts or anything on their website.

[ May 01, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[MolaKule]

In my view, this test doesn't show anything substantial. The reason is, each oil has a different level of rust inhibitiors, oxidation inhibitors, and metal deactivators, with all kinds of additve interactions going on (including different additives from different suppliers). An oil high in rust inhibitiors, oxidation inhibitors, and metal deactivators, whether synthetic or dino, are going to make a good showing in corrosion testing; all other things being equal. Now all other things being equal means that the tests were all conducted with the fewest variables and, under the same testing conditions, etc.

Now the only valid test for ester decomposition/corrosion would be to simply mix two base oils of varying PAO/(TMP or PE) esters (say 50/50, 75/25, and 90/10) and then run the corrosion tests. If the ester corrosion theory is correct, then the 50/50 mix should show the highest corrosion levels in micrograms or ppm of copper alloy (including aluminum, which is a copper alloy), lead, tin, and ferrous metals.

[ May 02, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[buster]

When looking at RL UOAs, the main element we see elevated is usually Pb, which seems to vary with certain cars. Fe is ok for the most part and copper is sometimes high. TBN usually falls quickly. RL's shear stability doesn't seem to be any better then the PAO based oils, although it should be if it's a majority POE based oil. Now if RL is primarily being used in cars that are driven extremely hard, then I could see why RL does show higher wear. The scavenger theory also seems very credible. It's really hard to tell.

 

[buster]

Not trying to beat a dead horse....but Primus posted something that went right over many people...

quote:

---

If to compare synthetic oils, according to tests run by our car magazine ester based oils showed considerably higher corrosivity then oils formulated mainly with PAO. To mesure weight loss of metal plates due to corrosion at 9.000 and 15.000 km it was used high temperature oxidation test (1 hour is considered as about 3.000 km). In the same table you will find shear stability. Unfortunately the procedure was not decribed: I could find only that they applied a higher temperature then 100 C (possible they used the same CEC L-14-A-93 with over 100 C and over 30 cycles).

...................................... Corrosion, g ........... Shear stability, %
Motul 300V 5W-30 ............. 7,0 ... 17,8 ............ - 9,0 ... - 3,0
Motul 8100 0W-40 ...................... 16,0 ....................... - 43,3
Shell Helix Ultra 0W-40 .................. 1,8 ....................... - 26,9
Mobil1 0W-40 ............................. 12,0 ...................... - 32,6
Castrol RS 0W-40 ......................... 7,0 ....................... - 49,5
Liqui Moly Synth. 5W-40 ................ 7,1 ....................... - 23,1
Chevron Delo-400 5W-40 ............. 10,0 ....................... - 40,0
Shell Helix Plus 10W-40 ....... 0,1 .... 8,2 .......... - 14,0 ... - 24,0
Castrol GTX5 10W-40 ......... 0,7 .... 3,3 .......... - 11,0 ... - 28,0
BP Visco 3000 10W-40 ........ 0,3 .... 6,0 ........... + 7,2 .... - 4,0
Valvoline Dura Blend ........... 3,7 ... 10,5 .......... - 25,0 ... - 27,0
Esso Ultra 10W-40 ............. 3,2 ... 11,0 .......... - 24,0 ... - 13,0
Castrol GTD 10W-40 ........... 2,0 .... 9,0 .......... - 10,0 ... - 29,0
Shell Helix Super 10W-40 .... 3,2 ... 12,0 .......... - 18,0 ... - 13,0
Liqui Moly Tour. 10W-40 ..... 5,6 ... 19,0 .......... + 12,0 ... + 41,0

---

 

[Leo]

That test shows that Motul 300V (being POE) had the 2nd highest corrosion, and not suprisngly, the best shear stability too!! The BP Visco 3000's shear stability looks like an outlier...