THE ULTIMATE 0W-40 OIL? Mobil 1 ==VS== Red Line!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Ibrahim
Mobil 1 0W-40 Approved Specifications:
Technical Data
0W-40................ Mobil 1
cSt @ 40ºC........... 78.3
cSt @ 100ºC.......... 14
HTHS................. 3.7

0W-40................ Red Line
cSt @ 40ºC........... 81
cSt @ 100ºC.......... 15.1
HTHS................. 4.0


If you are going to run the snot out of this engine, then RedLine is the better oil.

If you are going to pussyfoot around, it really does not mater.
 
Noack of redline 0W40 is 9, which is significantly different than say 5W40, 10w40, etc. which has a Noack of 6. Must be quite different formulas.

There is at least one UOA on the 0w40 on BITOG, I think it was saab9-3 's uoa. Can't remember if there is a VOA of it or not on BITOG but there probably is. Not sure why one would choose the 0w40 over the 5w40 personally unless you lived in the artic or were uncomfortable with the 5w40's "no-moly" formula.
 
Mitch, but how do you explain M1 having higher VI and Flash Point than Redline?

*assuming both M1 and Redline did closed or open cup test to determine FP?
 
Originally Posted By: Ibrahim
Mitch, but how do you explain M1 having higher VI and Flash Point than Redline?

*assuming both M1 and Redline did closed or open cup test to determine FP?


Sounds like a question for Dave. Doubtful Mobil would answer the question about their oil.
 
Originally Posted By: Ibrahim
Mitch, but how do you explain M1 having higher VI and Flash Point than Redline?

*assuming both M1 and Redline did closed or open cup test to determine FP?


the M1 does not have a higher VI,the RL does.in fact,since i doubt RL is going to want to have really large amounts of VII,it's the reason i'm guessing the RL is using diester in the formula.

diester normally has a higher VI and higher polarity than equivalent polyolesters.however,polyolesters typically resist more oxidation at higher temperatures.this can be negated in some circumstances by the use of antioxidants,so with the correct blends,diester will allow a shear stable oil without having to use as much VII as polyolester oils.(as far as having a really high VI)
 
I am sorry, I meant to ask how can one explain Red Line having Lower Flash Point than Mobil 1, just trying to figure out, given that Red Line is highly Ester based!
 
Originally Posted By: Ibrahim
I am sorry, I meant to ask how can one explain Red Line having Lower Flash Point than Mobil 1, just trying to figure out, given that Red Line is highly Ester based!


Verify to make sure it does, by taking different test labs/methods out of the equation:

Buy a bottle of Mobil 1 & a bottle of Redline, then pay for 2 VOA's.
 
Originally Posted By: BobFout
I had a recent VOA of M1 0w40 done, someone would just need to do a VOA on Red Line 0w40.


Like... the OP.

As long as it comes from the same lab you did the M1.

Comparing 2 different labs becomes an apples to oranges comparison, because it goes back to what I mentioned initally, consistency of testing.

Plus, looking at flashpoints, viscosity, etc.. the data thus far, only gives us part of the picture. Taking a look at the various additive elements helps formulate the bigger picture.
 
Originally Posted By: BobFout
I had a recent VOA of M1 0w40 done, someone would just need to do a VOA on Red Line 0w40.


I may take you up on this. Did you use Blackstone?
 
Originally Posted By: Ibrahim
I am sorry, I meant to ask how can one explain Red Line having Lower Flash Point than Mobil 1, just trying to figure out, given that Red Line is highly Ester based!



this is just an educated guess on my part.if there are any chemist out there that specialize in this field,i hope you chime in.

i believe it may just be free fatty acids that are in the mix.these,of course,will be lighter fractions and will effect the FP.

i have also noticed this in many high quality or specialized oils that are definately known to be PAO/ester oils,so i've wondered the same thing,sometimes especially those that are supposed to have higher ester content.

...but there's a few things i believe we all need to keep in mind.

first,i'm sure you all know how they get the FP.it's just the lowest temperature at which an ignition source(flame)causes the vapors of the oil to ignite under certain conditions.the FP is when the flame appears and covers the whole surface of the oil.the oil is progressively heated and when the vapors mix with oxygen,it flashes.the temperature at which this happens,is recorded.the flash is momentarily and extinguishes quickly.the fire point of an oil,is different.

ok,fine,..but there's a few problems imo.

the most important to me is,the FP of an oil tells you nothing about the volatility of the formulation as a whole.

also of note is,FPs were first used and invented for the purpose of transportation and storing safety issues.

i'll write down separately a few other thoughts i have about FPs.

they can be useful when comparing extremely similar formulations,especially from the same company or source,in determining the quality of base stocks(what kind),the quality of the refining process,how a single cut may vary in quality or if it is actually a blend of two base oils of different viscosities mixed together.it may give you some idea of the most volatile parts of an oil,giving some indication of how it's made or what it has in it.however,imo,this is most useful when trying to determine if it's a group I II or III...but oils can vary so much that it seems useless at times,even when comparing oils from the same formulator/brand.you can still try to use it though,because you may be spot on,especially when you combine it with other information.


the type of test used for determining an oils FP can vary,so that can also be a problem.that i know of,there are at least three different types that are normally used,maybe more.

even with the same type of FP test,it can vary from one lab to the next.it can even vary in the same lab,at least this is what i've noticed.

there can be variations/differences on the same exact oil.

again,i have noticed lower FPs in oils that i know for sure are PAO/ester based compared to lower quality oils,so sometimes the FP becomes useless to me.

i have noticed that the FP in a particular oils PDS can be massively different to the FP stated on it's msds,...again,useless.(i tend to believe the FP on the msds more)

with used oil,it is a whole different ball game.

i hope this helps but just remember,you can use the FP to determine the quality your looking for but you must use it as a whole with all the other specs and what is known of an oil.with some oils,it may actually give you an indication about it's volatility,in others,not even close.in fact,i have noticed a comparatively low FP of an oil(certain high quality,known PAO/ester based oils) that has a very low NOACK at the same time and yet,seen high FP of an oil(known to be grp II and even some grp III) with a relatively high NOACK.


i wish they all published the NOACK,but alas,that is not to be.i have even noticed some oils that have a particularly low NOACK,this information not given on their PDS,...now THAT is weird.before deciding on an oil though,i call them and ask and if the information is not given,i tell them flat out i don't like that and won't use their oil.i'm patient though,sometimes the distributor has no clue,sometimes YOU know more about the oil they sell,and oil in general,then they do,..but the people with the white coats are different.(they know ALL about their oil)
 
one more thing,...sometimes the FP is effected by a small portion of what is in an oil.(i don't necessarily mean RL,but just in general)

also,the FP given(PDS or msds) is from fresh,new oil,...like what would be expected to be in the containers of the oil being shipped or stored.i wrote this before but not this way.
 
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Noack of redline 0W40 is 9, which is significantly different than say 5W40, 10w40, etc. which has a Noack of 6. Must be quite different formulas.

There is at least one UOA on the 0w40 on BITOG, I think it was saab9-3 's uoa. Can't remember if there is a VOA of it or not on BITOG but there probably is. Not sure why one would choose the 0w40 over the 5w40 personally unless you lived in the artic or were uncomfortable with the 5w40's "no-moly" formula.


saaber1 have you opened you IM yet, just curious if you PCV mod is preventing carbon build up?

I have feeling that some of it might be due to the valve overlap simulating EGR function..
 
Originally Posted By: zoomzoom
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Noack of redline 0W40 is 9, which is significantly different than say 5W40, 10w40, etc. which has a Noack of 6. Must be quite different formulas.

There is at least one UOA on the 0w40 on BITOG, I think it was saab9-3 's uoa. Can't remember if there is a VOA of it or not on BITOG but there probably is. Not sure why one would choose the 0w40 over the 5w40 personally unless you lived in the artic or were uncomfortable with the 5w40's "no-moly" formula.


saaber1 have you opened you IM yet, just curious if you PCV mod is preventing carbon build up?

I have feeling that some of it might be due to the valve overlap simulating EGR function..


I think the only way to absolutely verify carbon buildup on the valves is to remove the intake and inspect visually (I don't have a flexible boroscope).

But you do get a good feel of how much total buildup occurs (valves + fuel injector + ?) by two symptoms on the FSI: (1) Stumbling starts, and (2) Rough idle. For example when I was using stock PCV system, stumbling starts and rough (I mean something other than perfectly smooth, not rough in terms of coughing, etc.) would come back in a relatively predictable time period after treating the deposits with valve cleaner (induction method). Usually within 300 miles you can feel it is different and by 1500 miles it is very noticeable.

So far I have put on approximately 16,000 miles on the PCV bypass to exhaust. In the 16k miles, there has been zero stumbling starts and no change at all in idle. So I am confident there are fewer valve deposits but I couldn't prove it unless I pulled off the intake manifold.
 
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Originally Posted By: zoomzoom
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Noack of redline 0W40 is 9, which is significantly different than say 5W40, 10w40, etc. which has a Noack of 6. Must be quite different formulas.

There is at least one UOA on the 0w40 on BITOG, I think it was saab9-3 's uoa. Can't remember if there is a VOA of it or not on BITOG but there probably is. Not sure why one would choose the 0w40 over the 5w40 personally unless you lived in the artic or were uncomfortable with the 5w40's "no-moly" formula.


saaber1 have you opened you IM yet, just curious if you PCV mod is preventing carbon build up?

I have feeling that some of it might be due to the valve overlap simulating EGR function..


I think the only way to absolutely verify carbon buildup on the valves is to remove the intake and inspect visually (I don't have a flexible boroscope).

But you do get a good feel of how much total buildup occurs (valves + fuel injector + ?) by two symptoms on the FSI: (1) Stumbling starts, and (2) Rough idle. For example when I was using stock PCV system, stumbling starts and rough (I mean something other than perfectly smooth, not rough in terms of coughing, etc.) would come back in a relatively predictable time period after treating the deposits with valve cleaner (induction method). Usually within 300 miles you can feel it is different and by 1500 miles it is very noticeable.

So far I have put on approximately 16,000 miles on the PCV bypass to exhaust. In the 16k miles, there has been zero stumbling starts and no change at all in idle. So I am confident there are fewer valve deposits but I couldn't prove it unless I pulled off the intake manifold.


so what are you waiting for then, take it off!
28.gif


lack of deposits after eliminating pcv system would confirm that valve overlap doesn't play role in the build up.

however some on RS4 forum think that oil seepage past valve guides is contributing factor as well...

Picture007.jpg
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: shpankey
Originally Posted By: BobFout
I had a recent VOA of M1 0w40 done, someone would just need to do a VOA on Red Line 0w40.


I may take you up on this. Did you use Blackstone?


Yes.
 
The only difference the average engine will ever see using either of these oils is......

Nothing!

Over the long haul Redline will cost more. Shorter OCI's and Higher costs of the product are the main factors.

Mobil 1 will allow you to buy a 50 inch flat screen in the dollars you save each 100K of engine life.
 
Originally Posted By: LargeCarManX2
The only difference the average engine will ever see using either of these oils is......

Nothing!

Over the long haul Redline will cost more. Shorter OCI's and Higher costs of the product are the main factors.

Mobil 1 will allow you to buy a 50 inch flat screen in the dollars you save each 100K of engine life.


M1 0w40 is $8/qt, Redline 0w40 is $10/quart. Both oils are good for 10K mile intervals at a minimum. Let's say 5 a quart sump. That's 10 oil changes.

M1: 5 quarts * $8/qt * 10 changes is $400.
Redline: 5 quarts * $10/qt * 10 changes is $500

Even at the laughable 5K mile interval:
M1: $800
Redline: $1000

And if M1 was good for 15K miles and Redline only 10K miles:
M1: $267
Redline: $500

I wanna find these $100 and $200 50 inch flat screens!
20.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ibrahim
Mitch, but how do you explain M1 having higher VI and Flash Point than Redline?


As to higher VI
A: As long as the cSt viscosities are reasonable, it probably does not mater (much).
B: I, personally, am much more interested at the cSt viscosity at 212dF and the cP viscosity at 305dF than from cSt viscosities from 40dF to 212dF. This has to do with my application (road race track).

As to Flash Point::
A: I am not sure it does have an actual higher flash point. That is the numbers on the MDS are minimums, and the numbers from VoA are actuals.
B: I'm pretty sure it really doen't mater if the number are close.
C: if the vehicle uses essentially no oil, it does not mater because vanishingly small amounts of oil are subject to flash point ignition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top