Only problem I have with the RLI Oils is the cost/benefit factor. For engines prone to severe fuel dilution, sure, use it and see what it does for you. But as time goes on, engines are lasting so long today on regular oil due to advancements in metallurgy, manufacturing and oil quality. Engines are simply not failing due to poor oil quality. Most API SM oils are outstanding today. This oil has a great shot at becoming a very high performane niche product and I'm all for it.
RLI BioSYN 0w20, 5k OCI, '05 Civic
- Thread starter lindermant
- Start date
- Status
* 0W-20 RLI was never described as controlling dilution, only surviving it better. It was the 5W-40 that was designed to control dilution
Warning MY OPINION ONLY:
In this case what part survied it better? TBN but it may have started higher there is NO VOA to look at.
I thought that RLI in general was the only chemistry to resisit fuel dilution did not know it is vis dependant I stand corrected.
* Iron wear is down by 45%
Beleive what you want a but 5 ppm ppm is not a big deal
and will have NO impact on practicle engine life or performance.
* Copper wear is down by 25%
Same as above
* Other elemental wear show negligible change
Agree
* By my reading of these UOAs, RLI has managed to significantly control the impact of fuel dilution on wear.
You are way splitting hairs here and giveing way to much credit, as I have said before for ANY boutique oil to give enough advantage to run it IMHO it must reduce wear a lot not 5ppm an just about all oils SM GF-4 will give low wear numbers now days so wear rates are NOT an issue anymore.
And it also must allow longer dain intervals by a 2 or 3X margin aswell as other improvemnts with in the current conditions of use.
If not then IMHO it is not worth the trouble just stick with a Cheapo oil and change at 5K, This is MY OPINION agree or not but 5ppm dif in NO way going to prove a oil is better or worse than an other.
Look at this way if an oil has 2ppm iron and another has 1ppm which is a 50% redcution it one better than the other at 4X the cost, NO.
bruce
Warning MY OPINION ONLY:
In this case what part survied it better? TBN but it may have started higher there is NO VOA to look at.
I thought that RLI in general was the only chemistry to resisit fuel dilution did not know it is vis dependant I stand corrected.
* Iron wear is down by 45%
Beleive what you want a but 5 ppm ppm is not a big deal
and will have NO impact on practicle engine life or performance.
* Copper wear is down by 25%
Same as above
* Other elemental wear show negligible change
Agree
* By my reading of these UOAs, RLI has managed to significantly control the impact of fuel dilution on wear.
You are way splitting hairs here and giveing way to much credit, as I have said before for ANY boutique oil to give enough advantage to run it IMHO it must reduce wear a lot not 5ppm an just about all oils SM GF-4 will give low wear numbers now days so wear rates are NOT an issue anymore.
And it also must allow longer dain intervals by a 2 or 3X margin aswell as other improvemnts with in the current conditions of use.
If not then IMHO it is not worth the trouble just stick with a Cheapo oil and change at 5K, This is MY OPINION agree or not but 5ppm dif in NO way going to prove a oil is better or worse than an other.
Look at this way if an oil has 2ppm iron and another has 1ppm which is a 50% redcution it one better than the other at 4X the cost, NO.
bruce
The TBN for VOA of the 0W20 RLI is 6.2
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Buster, if both analysis were done by Dyson, then in my experience those differences are real, and outside the lab margin of error.
But was the LAB the same? Terry doesn't do his own lab work.
my paperwork indicates the lab was the same for both Dyson UOAs
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Buster, if both analysis were done by Dyson, then in my experience those differences are real, and outside the lab margin of error.
But was the LAB the same? Terry doesn't do his own lab work.
my paperwork indicates the lab was the same for both Dyson UOAs
Bruce
I generally agree with you. Lets separate the points.
1) RLI did reduce wear on some elementals, and I'm confident that this difference will continue to show up in further UOAs. Whether or not this is important for a particular application is different than the fact that it did.
2) Although I did not state this, given the VOA TBN that AEHass reports, this oil could probably go about 2x the life of the Havoline.
3) Economics are an entirely different discussion. In an engine as solid as these Honda 4-cylinder engines, I doubt a good economic decision could be made for RLI. Even at a 2X OCI over Havoline, the oil would still be more expensive. These Honda 4 cylinder engines are already designed to run 200K miles with normal OCI's on recommended oil. Even if RLI were to extend the life of the motor by 50%, everything else in the vehicle would be shot by 300K miles.
I think this is another good test for BioSyn in another engine, and shows that it does hold up well, that the chemistry is solid, and that it does reduce wear in the face of fuel dilution.
Personally, I think this oil would be appropriate for the VTEC version of this motor for people who are racing or driving it hard.
I generally agree with you. Lets separate the points.
1) RLI did reduce wear on some elementals, and I'm confident that this difference will continue to show up in further UOAs. Whether or not this is important for a particular application is different than the fact that it did.
2) Although I did not state this, given the VOA TBN that AEHass reports, this oil could probably go about 2x the life of the Havoline.
3) Economics are an entirely different discussion. In an engine as solid as these Honda 4-cylinder engines, I doubt a good economic decision could be made for RLI. Even at a 2X OCI over Havoline, the oil would still be more expensive. These Honda 4 cylinder engines are already designed to run 200K miles with normal OCI's on recommended oil. Even if RLI were to extend the life of the motor by 50%, everything else in the vehicle would be shot by 300K miles.
I think this is another good test for BioSyn in another engine, and shows that it does hold up well, that the chemistry is solid, and that it does reduce wear in the face of fuel dilution.
Personally, I think this oil would be appropriate for the VTEC version of this motor for people who are racing or driving it hard.
Originally Posted By: bruce381
Look at this way if an oil has 2ppm iron and another has 1ppm which is a 50% redcution it one better than the other at 4X the cost, NO.
I'm nowhere near an expert, but I have to agree with bruce on this.
Honda engines are so [censored] clean/tight and well engineered that you do not need a boutique oil.
RI RS4 clearly does, different application, different requirements.
We're basically talking about opposite ends of the spectrum.
I wonder how RLI would do in my semi. 200k mile oil changes anyone?
Look at this way if an oil has 2ppm iron and another has 1ppm which is a 50% redcution it one better than the other at 4X the cost, NO.
I'm nowhere near an expert, but I have to agree with bruce on this.
Honda engines are so [censored] clean/tight and well engineered that you do not need a boutique oil.
RI RS4 clearly does, different application, different requirements.
We're basically talking about opposite ends of the spectrum.
I wonder how RLI would do in my semi. 200k mile oil changes anyone?
here's my $0.02...
Based on the RLI Ow20 UOA I linked for the Prius owner who had the fuel dilute reduction from 1.7x to 0.7x, I hoped for something similar.
The above mentioned Prius owner used RLI's fuel treatment in addition to the RLI oil for that particular OCI, so I'm curious what/if any role the fuel treatment played in the reduction of fuel dilute.
I don't know what/if any role the residual Havoline 5w20 in my engine played in this particular UOA results - probably not much, but I don't know for certain.
I haven't yet decided what I'll do next...
1) run this current oil to 7500 miles, then change.
2) suction out 1qt, replenish with fresh qt of RLI 0w20, and run RLI's fuel treatment for another 5k and test (but they don't sell it by the qt...)
3) dump the oil now and run another batch of RLI 0w20 for 5k - test and see if #'s stay the same or drop (assuming this would get all remnants of the Havoline out of the system).
4) dump the oil now and run another batch of RLI 0w20 w/RLI fuel additive for 5k and test.
5) switch back to my remaining 3-case supply of Havoline 5w20 SM/GF-4 and pick another hobby to obsess over
Based on the RLI Ow20 UOA I linked for the Prius owner who had the fuel dilute reduction from 1.7x to 0.7x, I hoped for something similar.
The above mentioned Prius owner used RLI's fuel treatment in addition to the RLI oil for that particular OCI, so I'm curious what/if any role the fuel treatment played in the reduction of fuel dilute.
I don't know what/if any role the residual Havoline 5w20 in my engine played in this particular UOA results - probably not much, but I don't know for certain.
I haven't yet decided what I'll do next...
1) run this current oil to 7500 miles, then change.
2) suction out 1qt, replenish with fresh qt of RLI 0w20, and run RLI's fuel treatment for another 5k and test (but they don't sell it by the qt...)
3) dump the oil now and run another batch of RLI 0w20 for 5k - test and see if #'s stay the same or drop (assuming this would get all remnants of the Havoline out of the system).
4) dump the oil now and run another batch of RLI 0w20 w/RLI fuel additive for 5k and test.
5) switch back to my remaining 3-case supply of Havoline 5w20 SM/GF-4 and pick another hobby to obsess over
lindermant
I'd follow Terry's recommendation. I suspect he'd say to keep the oil in the engine for 7.5K and use BioPlus. (why waste good oil?) There are supposed to be some synergistic effects between BioPlus and BioSyn chemistry. If you introduce BioPlus you may see some positive changes.
Let the data (and Terry) direct you.
I'd follow Terry's recommendation. I suspect he'd say to keep the oil in the engine for 7.5K and use BioPlus. (why waste good oil?) There are supposed to be some synergistic effects between BioPlus and BioSyn chemistry. If you introduce BioPlus you may see some positive changes.
Let the data (and Terry) direct you.
The argument about differentiating between oils based on two lab results is pointless unless you know the accuracy of the lab, and the lab itself is the only entity that MIGHT have a handle on that.
For instance, if their accuracy is only to plus/minus 5 PPM, then there is no difference in the two results. And from old discussions on here I think that is probably the case.
For instance, if their accuracy is only to plus/minus 5 PPM, then there is no difference in the two results. And from old discussions on here I think that is probably the case.
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
lindermant
I'd follow Terry's recommendation. I suspect he'd say to keep the oil in the engine for 7.5K and use BioPlus. (why waste good oil?) There are supposed to be some synergistic effects between BioPlus and BioSyn chemistry. If you introduce BioPlus you may see some positive changes.
Let the data (and Terry) direct you.
he recommended running it out another 2-3k. I didn't ask him about adding BioPlus - guess I will.
lindermant
I'd follow Terry's recommendation. I suspect he'd say to keep the oil in the engine for 7.5K and use BioPlus. (why waste good oil?) There are supposed to be some synergistic effects between BioPlus and BioSyn chemistry. If you introduce BioPlus you may see some positive changes.
Let the data (and Terry) direct you.
he recommended running it out another 2-3k. I didn't ask him about adding BioPlus - guess I will.
Hi guys, I'm new here and wanted to give my thoughts.
I've got a Honda Odyssey w/ 105k on it and a new Honda Fit w/ 5k miles on it. I'm running RLI in both vehicles for extended oil change intervals -- I'm also using amsoil Ea filters.
Prior to running RLI, I've run Mobil Clean 5k in our vehicles and changed at 5000 mile intervals. With the RLI, I'm going to run 1 year or 20k mile oil change intervals. In combination w/ that we'll have the oil analyzed every 5000 miles or so to make sure it's holding up. I've been thinking about adding a make-up quart every 5000 miles to refresh the additive package.
RLI doesn't make economic sense if it's being changed at traditional intervals (neither does Mobil 1 or Amsoil) but for extended change intervals or for use in racing conditions I think it's worth the money.
Just my thoughts. ;-)
regards,
Dave
I've got a Honda Odyssey w/ 105k on it and a new Honda Fit w/ 5k miles on it. I'm running RLI in both vehicles for extended oil change intervals -- I'm also using amsoil Ea filters.
Prior to running RLI, I've run Mobil Clean 5k in our vehicles and changed at 5000 mile intervals. With the RLI, I'm going to run 1 year or 20k mile oil change intervals. In combination w/ that we'll have the oil analyzed every 5000 miles or so to make sure it's holding up. I've been thinking about adding a make-up quart every 5000 miles to refresh the additive package.
RLI doesn't make economic sense if it's being changed at traditional intervals (neither does Mobil 1 or Amsoil) but for extended change intervals or for use in racing conditions I think it's worth the money.
Just my thoughts. ;-)
regards,
Dave
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: bruce381
Other than a higher retained TBN the RLI shows really no improvement over cheapo havoline even in the fuel dilution department where it is posed to be the hot setup.
Bruce
I agree. And the RLI was probably 4X the price of Havoline. Wear metals are statistically the same. Some engines just don't need expensive oils, period.
Subaru, Toyota and Honda do it right. They build engines that wear low regardless of the oil used.
I agree buster. This is an econobox too. no disrepect intended. This isn't a turbocharged or a high output V-6.
Originally Posted By: bruce381
Other than a higher retained TBN the RLI shows really no improvement over cheapo havoline even in the fuel dilution department where it is posed to be the hot setup.
Bruce
I agree. And the RLI was probably 4X the price of Havoline. Wear metals are statistically the same. Some engines just don't need expensive oils, period.
Subaru, Toyota and Honda do it right. They build engines that wear low regardless of the oil used.
I agree buster. This is an econobox too. no disrepect intended. This isn't a turbocharged or a high output V-6.
Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
I agree buster. This is an econobox too. no disrepect intended. This isn't a turbocharged or a high output V-6.
[adam sandler]RESPECT![/adam sandler]
no worries, it certainly is an econobox/commuter
I agree buster. This is an econobox too. no disrepect intended. This isn't a turbocharged or a high output V-6.
[adam sandler]RESPECT![/adam sandler]
no worries, it certainly is an econobox/commuter
The UOA results are interesting and you really have done a great job keeping the testing on as even a keel as possible. I like the idea of using Bio-based lubricants for many reasons. The idea of a petroleum free lubricant that protects as well, or better, than most synthetics is appealing to say the least.
With that being said, I think that some are getting carried away using RLI in daily driver vehicles that really do quite well as long as regular drain intervals are performed. The idea of spending $40+ on RLI 0W-20 and a $50 UOA seems a bit over the top in my opinion. Just think of all the oil changes that could be performed with $90+. I do not fault those who want to go the RLI route, but personally I will stick with 5,000 mile drain/fills with Mobil 1. That is about as extreme as I get these days.
As for the 45% reduction in Fe, I am left wondering at what point reasonable people can agree that 5 ppm is statistically insignificant. This holds especially true when one considers the sampling methods that most of us employ.
I know that this post will act as a lightning rod, but I had to speak my mind on this.
With that being said, I think that some are getting carried away using RLI in daily driver vehicles that really do quite well as long as regular drain intervals are performed. The idea of spending $40+ on RLI 0W-20 and a $50 UOA seems a bit over the top in my opinion. Just think of all the oil changes that could be performed with $90+. I do not fault those who want to go the RLI route, but personally I will stick with 5,000 mile drain/fills with Mobil 1. That is about as extreme as I get these days.
As for the 45% reduction in Fe, I am left wondering at what point reasonable people can agree that 5 ppm is statistically insignificant. This holds especially true when one considers the sampling methods that most of us employ.
I know that this post will act as a lightning rod, but I had to speak my mind on this.
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
I have a VOA showing Fe and Al in the wear metals = 2, Si 7 and Na 11, B 20. The viscosity at 100 C is 7.8 and the flash at 395. (RLI).
aehaas
Unless same lot # is not accurate.
bruce
I have a VOA showing Fe and Al in the wear metals = 2, Si 7 and Na 11, B 20. The viscosity at 100 C is 7.8 and the flash at 395. (RLI).
aehaas
Unless same lot # is not accurate.
bruce
well said
Originally Posted By: mfisher1967
As for the 45% reduction in Fe, I am left wondering at what point reasonable people can agree that 5 ppm is statistically insignificant. This holds especially true when one considers the sampling methods that most of us employ.
Explain what you mean by "statistically insignificant" and how you arrive at that conclusion, without knowledge of the accuracy and repeatability of the lab and/or the sampling method used. If by this you mean that if an additional sample were taken of RLI at exactly the same time and were run through the lab that the results could deviate by 5 ppm at the contract lab that Terry uses, I doubt that, based on my experience with many samples in my engine ... 4 of which were taken on the same day and track extraordinarily well.
As for the 45% reduction in Fe, I am left wondering at what point reasonable people can agree that 5 ppm is statistically insignificant. This holds especially true when one considers the sampling methods that most of us employ.
Explain what you mean by "statistically insignificant" and how you arrive at that conclusion, without knowledge of the accuracy and repeatability of the lab and/or the sampling method used. If by this you mean that if an additional sample were taken of RLI at exactly the same time and were run through the lab that the results could deviate by 5 ppm at the contract lab that Terry uses, I doubt that, based on my experience with many samples in my engine ... 4 of which were taken on the same day and track extraordinarily well.
I would bet $1 that two samples, caught separately from the same oil sump, would yield some difference in Fe content. Can anyone say with absolute certainty that wear metals are distributed with uniform consistency throughout oil a sump? Looking at some of the UOA's here on BITOG, it does not seem that unusual to see Fe levels track slightly up and down over time.
Case in point. Here is information posted from a recent RLI UOA:
From Left to Right
GC 0W30 - Butler Labs - 5,090 OCI - 10/18/06 (LC at 2 oz per qt intial & 2-3oz per 1k)
RLI 5W40 - Dyson Labs - 612 OCI - 06/26/07
RLI 5W40 - Dyson Labs - 2986 (2 qts changed) - 11/01/07
Iron 7-->6-->8
Given the above information, and the logic used throughout this thread, would you state that the last sample with RLI resulted in a 34% increase in Fe?
The first sample of GC contained 7 ppm of Fe after 5,090 miles. How then do you explain the 6 ppm of Fe in the second sample of RLI, which was present after only 612 miles! Clearly this was residual Fe, so I would call it statistically insignificant in the context of that one sample.
As I have stated before, RLI makes a quality product. The above examples would hold true no matter which brand of oil was used. I just feel that one should apply some common sense when looking at the cost benefit analysis of using any lubricant.
Just my 2 cents
Case in point. Here is information posted from a recent RLI UOA:
From Left to Right
GC 0W30 - Butler Labs - 5,090 OCI - 10/18/06 (LC at 2 oz per qt intial & 2-3oz per 1k)
RLI 5W40 - Dyson Labs - 612 OCI - 06/26/07
RLI 5W40 - Dyson Labs - 2986 (2 qts changed) - 11/01/07
Iron 7-->6-->8
Given the above information, and the logic used throughout this thread, would you state that the last sample with RLI resulted in a 34% increase in Fe?
The first sample of GC contained 7 ppm of Fe after 5,090 miles. How then do you explain the 6 ppm of Fe in the second sample of RLI, which was present after only 612 miles! Clearly this was residual Fe, so I would call it statistically insignificant in the context of that one sample.
As I have stated before, RLI makes a quality product. The above examples would hold true no matter which brand of oil was used. I just feel that one should apply some common sense when looking at the cost benefit analysis of using any lubricant.
Just my 2 cents
Not only that, Fe wear comes from so many different parts of the engine.
With a number that low, I'd have to say the majority of the iron in the oil came from the block itself, "leeching".
With a number that low, I'd have to say the majority of the iron in the oil came from the block itself, "leeching".
- Status
Similar threads
