Redline 5w40, 10K miles, 2.0 PD TDI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
3,208
Location
Indiana
75% highway at 70 to 80 MPH, 25% urban.

TonyPassatRedline5w40UOA.png
 
Interesting to see a 10k run on this oil. I'm used to seeing DI petrol engines or race engines etc. with lower OCIs. TBN higher than I would have thought. Viscosity loss 3%. What were the earlier oils you used? Interesting that moly is 26 when virgin is around 0 and it can't really be residual form previous fill. Likewise magnesium but that could be explained from residual oil from previous fill.
 
Saber, I'll ask the owner what the previous oils were.

CJ-4 does allow small amounts of moly. (Amsoil DEO has some)
 
Originally Posted By: BobFout
CJ-4 does allow small amounts of moly. (Amsoil DEO has some)

There are a couple VOAs of the post 2008 formula on BITOG and none show moly over 3ppm. I wonder if the formula has changed? Here is one of the VOA threads: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1264593 Interestingly, Dave at Redline was unaware that they dropped moly from the formula even after it was being sold. So that VOA was a bit of an education for him too I guess. Maybe that's why we need BITOG ha ha.
 
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Interesting to see a 10k run on this oil. I'm used to seeing DI petrol engines or race engines etc. with lower OCIs. TBN higher than I would have thought. Viscosity loss 3%. What were the earlier oils you used? Interesting that moly is 26 when virgin is around 0 and it can't really be residual form previous fill. Likewise magnesium but that could be explained from residual oil from previous fill.


Mobil 1 TDT since 56K miles.
 
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Originally Posted By: BobFout
CJ-4 does allow small amounts of moly. (Amsoil DEO has some)

There are a couple VOAs of the post 2008 formula on BITOG and none show moly over 3ppm. I wonder if the formula has changed? Here is one of the VOA threads: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1264593 Interestingly, Dave at Redline was unaware that they dropped moly from the formula even after it was being sold. So that VOA was a bit of an education for him too I guess. Maybe that's why we need BITOG ha ha.


I heard back from Dave. RL 5w40 should have around 100 ppm of moly.
 
Originally Posted By: BobFout
I heard back from Dave. RL 5w40 should have around 100 ppm of moly.

Slightly higher levels of moly and a lot more Mg than I'm used to seeing in their 5W40. I suppose the Mg is lingering from the previous fill. Looks good for a 10K+ mile sample ... very shear stable and lots of TBN life left. I believe Blackstone's universal averages are based on half the miles you had on your oil.

The most recent RL 5W40 VOA I saw was sampled 5/12/09 and had a moly concentration of 711 ppm.
shocked.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BobFout
I heard back from Dave. RL 5w40 should have around 100 ppm of moly.


Cool, so it's been tweaked a little?
 
If their 5W40 formulation changed to include 100 ppm moly, that would be perfect. I was considering mixing in a quart of 10W40 to a 5W40 fill to bring up moly to about 100 ppm.
 
Originally Posted By: SIXSPEED
Originally Posted By: BobFout
I heard back from Dave. RL 5w40 should have around 100 ppm of moly.

Slightly higher levels of moly and a lot more Mg than I'm used to seeing in their 5W40. I suppose the Mg is lingering from the previous fill. Looks good for a 10K+ mile sample ... very shear stable and lots of TBN life left. I believe Blackstone's universal averages are based on half the miles you had on your oil.

The most recent RL 5W40 VOA I saw was sampled 5/12/09 and had a moly concentration of 711 ppm.
shocked.gif



This is before CJ-4 compliance, hence the huge drop in moly.
 
Originally Posted By: SIXSPEED
If their 5W40 formulation changed to include 100 ppm moly, that would be perfect. I was considering mixing in a quart of 10W40 to a 5W40 fill to bring up moly to about 100 ppm.


Their 10w40 is not CJ-4, should have the full ~950 ppm of moly.
 
I would guess that they are using it as an antioxidant at those lower levels rather than as a friction modifier as used in the higher moly formulations. As I understand it, large amounts are needed to act as a friction modifier due to surface competition with the esters. As I recall from extremely limited data, I got the impression that TAN buildup seemed higher on the high-moly formulas than the no-moly formulas. This makes sense as the amount of sulphur containing additives can influence acid buildup.

Interesting that they went from zero moly to 100ppm. I wonder if TBN is also impacted by the formula change.?
 
I plan to buy some RL 5W40 in the next month. I will send a sample in for a VOA; then we'll know better what's in it. The most recent RL 5W40 VOAs I've come across are from 2008 and 2009.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: saaber1
I would guess that they are using it as an antioxidant at those lower levels rather than as a friction modifier as used in the higher moly formulations. As I understand it, large amounts are needed to act as a friction modifier due to surface competition with the esters. As I recall from extremely limited data, I got the impression that TAN buildup seemed higher on the high-moly formulas than the no-moly formulas. This makes sense as the amount of sulphur containing additives can influence acid buildup.

Interesting that they went from zero moly to 100ppm. I wonder if TBN is also impacted by the formula change.?


It [RL 5w40] went from many hundreds of ppm of Moly to 100 RPM. Previous VOAs (non CJ-4 5w40) still had high moly levels.
 
Originally Posted By: BobFout
It [RL 5w40] went from many hundreds of ppm of Moly to 100 RPM. Previous VOAs (non CJ-4 5w40) still had high moly levels.

This is getting a little confusing. Maybe reviewing the past will tell us if we are talking about one formula change or two.

1) The formula change from lots of moly to zero moly was first discovered in Oct. 2008. Both VOAs done in Oct. 2008 showed 1-3 ppm Moly.

2) Then we saw the UOA in this thread that had moly in the 20s

3) Then you checked with Dave and he said it has 100ppm. Since the previous VOAs had zero, I assume the change from zero to 100ppm was a new formula change. Are you saying that the formula change first discovered in Oct. 2008 was supposed to be 100ppm?

Just trying to figure out if this is a new formula change (sometime since Oct. 2008) or if this is the same formula as the Oct. 2008 one. I guess it could also just be variability with batches or could be lab variability.
 
Saaber1,

I think there were TWO formulation changes in the past.

High moly -> No moly
No moly -> Low moly


My guess:

High Moly = non-CJ-4
No and Low Moly = CJ-4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top