As a long time Redline customer, I am frankly disappointed with the changes. They have obviously reduced the POE considerably and I can now see no advantage over the Amsoil SSO line. The price is quite a bit higher than an Amsoil preferred customer will pay. I run Amsoil MC 10W-40 in my Kawasaki ZX-14R and will begin using Amsoil SSO 10W-30 in summer and 5W-20 in winter in my 2005 Sequoia instead of the Redline 5W-20 I have been using for years. M1 High Mileage looks better than Redline now IMO. Bummer!
Red Line: chemstry tweaks across the street range
- Thread starter tudorart
- Start date
- Status
Oh I'm sure they're gaining 3 customers on the new one for each one lost on the old 5W20.
Amsoil will play by the book and most add pack levels are limited to approval levels...different approach anyway.
Are you referring to 10W40 or 5W20 HM? What looks better?
Amsoil will play by the book and most add pack levels are limited to approval levels...different approach anyway.
Are you referring to 10W40 or 5W20 HM? What looks better?
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: tudorart
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: tudorart
Now when you talk about their extra add packs, I honestly only know about more zinc from their PDF...which is not very expensive. What else do you know about?
They use AN's in their high-end lubes (like M1 0w-40) as part of their way of achieving the level of performance that oil provides. Yes, it has more Zinc and phosphorous (and Moly) too, but that's what is nice about the Porsche stuff that buster posted earlier, it is THAT level of performance that requires this product to be exceptional (and subsequently, different) from its same-branded peers.
I know about the AN. Let me ask you this though: do they use it as a correction fluid to account for less PAO in there and did they use it before when majority was PAO based? Is the Delvac 1 5W40 having it. do you know?
What is the source for Buster's post? I read it and concur.
Now on the other hand there's that Joe Gibbs DT40 developed with an Porsche engine builder/racing team that specifically wanted better performance than the 0W40. whereas I'm not too familiar with the DT40 which is a street oil firstly, there seems to be higher performance levels desired.
Nope, I don't know. And I'm not familiar with the Joe Gibbs team. But I would argue that if this was a real issue, that Mobil would readily formulate a different lubricant to meet the requirements of whatever team they were working with. Mobil probably spends more on coffee than Joe Gibbs makes in a year. They are the most profitable oil company of all time, and have been the most profitable company in history. That's the advantage of having that kind of money, you can make pretty much anything for anybody if they want it.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: tudorart
Now when you talk about their extra add packs, I honestly only know about more zinc from their PDF...which is not very expensive. What else do you know about?
They use AN's in their high-end lubes (like M1 0w-40) as part of their way of achieving the level of performance that oil provides. Yes, it has more Zinc and phosphorous (and Moly) too, but that's what is nice about the Porsche stuff that buster posted earlier, it is THAT level of performance that requires this product to be exceptional (and subsequently, different) from its same-branded peers.
I know about the AN. Let me ask you this though: do they use it as a correction fluid to account for less PAO in there and did they use it before when majority was PAO based? Is the Delvac 1 5W40 having it. do you know?
What is the source for Buster's post? I read it and concur.
Now on the other hand there's that Joe Gibbs DT40 developed with an Porsche engine builder/racing team that specifically wanted better performance than the 0W40. whereas I'm not too familiar with the DT40 which is a street oil firstly, there seems to be higher performance levels desired.
Nope, I don't know. And I'm not familiar with the Joe Gibbs team. But I would argue that if this was a real issue, that Mobil would readily formulate a different lubricant to meet the requirements of whatever team they were working with. Mobil probably spends more on coffee than Joe Gibbs makes in a year. They are the most profitable oil company of all time, and have been the most profitable company in history. That's the advantage of having that kind of money, you can make pretty much anything for anybody if they want it.
I see Overkill, thanks.
Ok, just got the specific gravity for the RL 10W30.
It is 0.891 @60°F.
Similar to the one before.
Ok, just got the specific gravity for the RL 10W30.
It is 0.891 @60°F.
Similar to the one before.
The M1 HM 5W-20.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Too bad their 0W-40 VI has dropped from 197 to 190.
YES, that is a crying shame as I was going to use that stuff, blended with whatever would be the most compatible/highest VI I could find 0W-20 oil for my next winter OCI.
You can't be serious.
About what exactly??
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Too bad their 0W-40 VI has dropped from 197 to 190.
YES, that is a crying shame as I was going to use that stuff, blended with whatever would be the most compatible/highest VI I could find 0W-20 oil for my next winter OCI.
You can't be serious.
About what exactly??
Originally Posted By: buster
^+1 Exactly.
Point:
Quote:
Let us rather concentrate on the universe in which we, sales guys, operate: realities of the business world. To make and distribute oil at a competitive price, a company must be able to manufacture or buy the components at a competitive price, and have enough of a market to pay for the development and manufacturing cost. That company has to be able to “be a player”. Once that company decides to “be a player”, say, in the Porsche market, then the sound and professional way to operate is to present the finished product to Porsche so they put it through the Porsche 996FL Engine test. This test will last 203 hours. The engine, and the oil, will go through: - 4 times the simulation of 35 hours of summer driving, - 4 times the simulation of 13.5 hours of winter driving, - 40 cold starts, - 5 times the simulation of 1-hour sessions on the “Nürburgring” racetrack, - 3.5 hours of “running-in” program Measurements on the engine and on the oil will be done at regular intervals, and the following parameter will be taken into account to grant the approval or not: - torque curve (internal friction), - oxidation of the oil, - Piston cleanliness and ring sticking, - Valve train wear protection. Cam & tappet wear must be less than 10 µm. - Engine cleanliness and sludge: after 203 hours, no deposits must be visible. - Bearing wear protection: visual rating according to Porsche in-house method. Several mechanics told me that they were relying on “their own testing” to choose an oil. None of these mechanics showed me that their method came close to matching what Porsche does: running dozens of oils through the same 203-hour test, and comparing the results. This test has been designed by Porsche to guarantee the availability of test-proven oils for all Porsche since model year 1973: the letter (attached) given to oil manufacturers specifies that date.
If this is all the vaunted Porsche oil testing is, I'm not impressed. We do more extensive testing on our valvetrain components where I work in order to pass standard durability tests of US OEM's. Only 203 hours total, with only 5 of those simulating high power use? And they allow 10 microns of wear? Our wear limit is 3 microns after 300 hours at steady-state full power.
^+1 Exactly.
Point:
Quote:
Let us rather concentrate on the universe in which we, sales guys, operate: realities of the business world. To make and distribute oil at a competitive price, a company must be able to manufacture or buy the components at a competitive price, and have enough of a market to pay for the development and manufacturing cost. That company has to be able to “be a player”. Once that company decides to “be a player”, say, in the Porsche market, then the sound and professional way to operate is to present the finished product to Porsche so they put it through the Porsche 996FL Engine test. This test will last 203 hours. The engine, and the oil, will go through: - 4 times the simulation of 35 hours of summer driving, - 4 times the simulation of 13.5 hours of winter driving, - 40 cold starts, - 5 times the simulation of 1-hour sessions on the “Nürburgring” racetrack, - 3.5 hours of “running-in” program Measurements on the engine and on the oil will be done at regular intervals, and the following parameter will be taken into account to grant the approval or not: - torque curve (internal friction), - oxidation of the oil, - Piston cleanliness and ring sticking, - Valve train wear protection. Cam & tappet wear must be less than 10 µm. - Engine cleanliness and sludge: after 203 hours, no deposits must be visible. - Bearing wear protection: visual rating according to Porsche in-house method. Several mechanics told me that they were relying on “their own testing” to choose an oil. None of these mechanics showed me that their method came close to matching what Porsche does: running dozens of oils through the same 203-hour test, and comparing the results. This test has been designed by Porsche to guarantee the availability of test-proven oils for all Porsche since model year 1973: the letter (attached) given to oil manufacturers specifies that date.
If this is all the vaunted Porsche oil testing is, I'm not impressed. We do more extensive testing on our valvetrain components where I work in order to pass standard durability tests of US OEM's. Only 203 hours total, with only 5 of those simulating high power use? And they allow 10 microns of wear? Our wear limit is 3 microns after 300 hours at steady-state full power.
Very little difference between 0w20 and 5w20 now.
What's interesting is that if you relied on the VI only, you would think there was a big difference between the two.
0W20 from
Vis @ 100°C – 8.2cSt to 9.1cSt
Vis @ 40°C - 43cSt to 48 cSt
VI - 166 to 172
HTHS Vis - 2.7 to 2.9
Flash Point, °C - 216 to 230
5W20 from
Vis @ 100°C – 9.1cSt to 9cSt
Vis @ 40°C - 55cSt to 53 cSt
VI - 145 to 147
HTHS Vis – 3.3 to 3.0
Flash Point, °C - 251 to 232
CCS Viscosity, Poise, @-30*C – 50 to 60
What's interesting is that if you relied on the VI only, you would think there was a big difference between the two.
0W20 from
Vis @ 100°C – 8.2cSt to 9.1cSt
Vis @ 40°C - 43cSt to 48 cSt
VI - 166 to 172
HTHS Vis - 2.7 to 2.9
Flash Point, °C - 216 to 230
5W20 from
Vis @ 100°C – 9.1cSt to 9cSt
Vis @ 40°C - 55cSt to 53 cSt
VI - 145 to 147
HTHS Vis – 3.3 to 3.0
Flash Point, °C - 251 to 232
CCS Viscosity, Poise, @-30*C – 50 to 60
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: tudorart
To Caterham
I agree about the RL 5W40 blend but mostly because I wouldn't want to trade moly for extra dispersants. I am also of the few that is glad HTHS went down on the new RL 5W40.
That's the other thing about RL 5W-40 as it is a "universal oil" being both a PCMO and HDEO as they have dropped the moly.
So if you want the moly forget RL 5W-40.
Yes, from what I understand from conversations with Dave at RL, their 5W-40, and 15W-40 weights were 'de-additivized' (additized??) greatly for lower SAPS diesel apps.
Originally Posted By: tudorart
To Caterham
I agree about the RL 5W40 blend but mostly because I wouldn't want to trade moly for extra dispersants. I am also of the few that is glad HTHS went down on the new RL 5W40.
That's the other thing about RL 5W-40 as it is a "universal oil" being both a PCMO and HDEO as they have dropped the moly.
So if you want the moly forget RL 5W-40.
Yes, from what I understand from conversations with Dave at RL, their 5W-40, and 15W-40 weights were 'de-additivized' (additized??) greatly for lower SAPS diesel apps.
Joe Gibbs DT40 5W-40 is a PAO based oil made for then by Lubrizol.
They make a big deal about using high VI base oils but with a finished VI of only 171 it's just average in that regard although it likely contains little in the way of additional polymer VIIs. I believe they use high VI heavy PAOs instead so it should be a very shear stable oil.
It probably has more ZDDP than M1 0W-40.
Personally I'd still prefer M1 0W-40 for it's higher VI and lower cost and RL 0W-40 to both.
They make a big deal about using high VI base oils but with a finished VI of only 171 it's just average in that regard although it likely contains little in the way of additional polymer VIIs. I believe they use high VI heavy PAOs instead so it should be a very shear stable oil.
It probably has more ZDDP than M1 0W-40.
Personally I'd still prefer M1 0W-40 for it's higher VI and lower cost and RL 0W-40 to both.
To dailydriver:
Not exactly so. They made room for extra dispersants by cutting down on the moly. The end result is still a full saps oil with the same levels just like the rest of the line up.
CJ-4 is considered a Lower ash in terms of HDEO, that's true, but this is a Fulls SAPS PCMO oil.
5W40 1% sulfated ash, 1175 ppm phosphorus and 5000 ppm sulphur, 100 ppm moly
The non CJ-4 1% sulfated ash, 1200 ppm phosphorus and 5000 ppm sulphur, 950 ppm moly
Not exactly so. They made room for extra dispersants by cutting down on the moly. The end result is still a full saps oil with the same levels just like the rest of the line up.
CJ-4 is considered a Lower ash in terms of HDEO, that's true, but this is a Fulls SAPS PCMO oil.
5W40 1% sulfated ash, 1175 ppm phosphorus and 5000 ppm sulphur, 100 ppm moly
The non CJ-4 1% sulfated ash, 1200 ppm phosphorus and 5000 ppm sulphur, 950 ppm moly
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: tudorart
To dailydriver:
Not exactly so. They made room for extra dispersants by cutting down on the moly. The end result is still a full saps oil with the same levels just like the rest of the line up.
CJ-4 is considered a Lower ash in terms of HDEO, that's true, but this is a Fulls SAPS PCMO oil.
5W40 1% sulfated ash, 1175 ppm phosphorus and 5000 ppm sulphur, 100 ppm moly
The non CJ-4 1% sulfated ash, 1200 ppm phosphorus and 5000 ppm sulphur, 950 ppm moly
OK, thanks, I must have misunderstood Dave, or he just did not get into the 'tech' of the diesel formulations.
BTW everyone, just for the sake of clarity, the price of the M1 street products, even on the shelves at SinoMart, and NAPA, is STILL more than half of the cost of Red Line (quart to quart containers).
The lowest price I've ever seen for the M1 Racing products is at least $7.00 MORE PER QUART THAN what I can buy Red Line for currently.
It is more in that Millers/Motul price point, BUT the difference being those two still can be for longer OCI street use as well, despite being labelled as "race" oils, unlike the M1 offerings.
To dailydriver:
Not exactly so. They made room for extra dispersants by cutting down on the moly. The end result is still a full saps oil with the same levels just like the rest of the line up.
CJ-4 is considered a Lower ash in terms of HDEO, that's true, but this is a Fulls SAPS PCMO oil.
5W40 1% sulfated ash, 1175 ppm phosphorus and 5000 ppm sulphur, 100 ppm moly
The non CJ-4 1% sulfated ash, 1200 ppm phosphorus and 5000 ppm sulphur, 950 ppm moly
OK, thanks, I must have misunderstood Dave, or he just did not get into the 'tech' of the diesel formulations.
BTW everyone, just for the sake of clarity, the price of the M1 street products, even on the shelves at SinoMart, and NAPA, is STILL more than half of the cost of Red Line (quart to quart containers).
The lowest price I've ever seen for the M1 Racing products is at least $7.00 MORE PER QUART THAN what I can buy Red Line for currently.
It is more in that Millers/Motul price point, BUT the difference being those two still can be for longer OCI street use as well, despite being labelled as "race" oils, unlike the M1 offerings.
So since Redline is changing things up abit,what exactly has "changed"?
I'm not a guy who looks at numbers,never have. I go by engine tear downs etc.I want to know why people are in a buzz over the changes,simple and to the point.
I'm not a guy who looks at numbers,never have. I go by engine tear downs etc.I want to know why people are in a buzz over the changes,simple and to the point.
Originally Posted By: S65AMG
Very little difference between 0w20 and 5w20 now.
What's interesting is that if you relied on the VI only, you would think there was a big difference between the two.
0W20 from
Vis @ 100°C – 8.2cSt to 9.1cSt
Vis @ 40°C - 43cSt to 48 cSt
VI - 166 to 172
HTHS Vis - 2.7 to 2.9
Flash Point, °C - 216 to 230
5W20 from
Vis @ 100°C – 9.1cSt to 9cSt
Vis @ 40°C - 55cSt to 53 cSt
VI - 145 to 147
HTHS Vis – 3.3 to 3.0
Flash Point, °C - 251 to 232
CCS Viscosity, Poise, @-30*C – 50 to 60
Yes the two oils are closer but the 147 VI of the 5W-20 remains pathetic for a premium syn' oil. Heck virtually all dino 5W-20 have a higher VI.
Both oils are better thought of as light 30wts and the big VI difference plus the slightly lower HTHSV for the 0W-20 will be reflected in a noticeably lighter oil on-start-up but also at normal operating temp's.
Very little difference between 0w20 and 5w20 now.
What's interesting is that if you relied on the VI only, you would think there was a big difference between the two.
0W20 from
Vis @ 100°C – 8.2cSt to 9.1cSt
Vis @ 40°C - 43cSt to 48 cSt
VI - 166 to 172
HTHS Vis - 2.7 to 2.9
Flash Point, °C - 216 to 230
5W20 from
Vis @ 100°C – 9.1cSt to 9cSt
Vis @ 40°C - 55cSt to 53 cSt
VI - 145 to 147
HTHS Vis – 3.3 to 3.0
Flash Point, °C - 251 to 232
CCS Viscosity, Poise, @-30*C – 50 to 60
Yes the two oils are closer but the 147 VI of the 5W-20 remains pathetic for a premium syn' oil. Heck virtually all dino 5W-20 have a higher VI.
Both oils are better thought of as light 30wts and the big VI difference plus the slightly lower HTHSV for the 0W-20 will be reflected in a noticeably lighter oil on-start-up but also at normal operating temp's.
Originally Posted By: DragRace
So since Redline is changing things up abit,what exactly has "changed"?
I'm not a guy who looks at numbers,never have. I go by engine tear downs etc.I want to know why people are in a buzz over the changes,simple and to the point.
I agree that is ultimately the best way to measure engine wear and even cleanliness. Still you need to know the correct viscosity to run to keeps your oil pressure in the right neighbourhood, and the best viscosity spec's to do that are HTHS and VI.
So since Redline is changing things up abit,what exactly has "changed"?
I'm not a guy who looks at numbers,never have. I go by engine tear downs etc.I want to know why people are in a buzz over the changes,simple and to the point.
I agree that is ultimately the best way to measure engine wear and even cleanliness. Still you need to know the correct viscosity to run to keeps your oil pressure in the right neighbourhood, and the best viscosity spec's to do that are HTHS and VI.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Yes the two oils are closer but the 147 VI of the 5W-20 remains pathetic for a premium syn' oil. Heck virtually all dino 5W-20 have a higher VI.
Both oils are better thought of as light 30wts and the big VI difference plus the slightly lower HTHSV for the 0W-20 will be reflected in a noticeably lighter oil on-start-up but also at normal operating temp's.
As you know, VI is simply calculated from the Vis at 40c and the Vis at 100c. On both of those data points, the viscosities are very close (9.1/48 & 9.0/53), I can't imagine they make any difference.
From what temperature point and down would you imagine the higher VI is beneficial?
Yes the two oils are closer but the 147 VI of the 5W-20 remains pathetic for a premium syn' oil. Heck virtually all dino 5W-20 have a higher VI.
Both oils are better thought of as light 30wts and the big VI difference plus the slightly lower HTHSV for the 0W-20 will be reflected in a noticeably lighter oil on-start-up but also at normal operating temp's.
As you know, VI is simply calculated from the Vis at 40c and the Vis at 100c. On both of those data points, the viscosities are very close (9.1/48 & 9.0/53), I can't imagine they make any difference.
From what temperature point and down would you imagine the higher VI is beneficial?
Originally Posted By: DragRace
So since Redline is changing things up abit,what exactly has "changed"?
I'm not a guy who looks at numbers,never have. I go by engine tear downs etc.I want to know why people are in a buzz over the changes,simple and to the point.
All oils change over time as you know. RL made a revision and updated their PDS's to reflect the new formulation. No one knows what changed other than the technical specs, and no one knows what specs RL does or doesn't meet so we know very little about RL overall.
So since Redline is changing things up abit,what exactly has "changed"?
I'm not a guy who looks at numbers,never have. I go by engine tear downs etc.I want to know why people are in a buzz over the changes,simple and to the point.
All oils change over time as you know. RL made a revision and updated their PDS's to reflect the new formulation. No one knows what changed other than the technical specs, and no one knows what specs RL does or doesn't meet so we know very little about RL overall.
The 25 point VI difference is significant, that in conjunction with the lower HTHSV means that the 0W-20 is lighter at all temperatures from 150C on down; you can ignore the KV spec's. Beneficial is not a word I would use but rather what would be noticeable if you had a viscometer on board (OP gauge).
In my experience, you would definitely notice the difference on start-up even at 70F temp's and that difference would grow as the temp's drop.
In my experience, you would definitely notice the difference on start-up even at 70F temp's and that difference would grow as the temp's drop.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
In my experience, you would definitely notice the difference on start-up even at 70F temp's and that difference would grow as the temp's drop.
Thanks for the reply.
If I wanted to visualize this better and compare oils, would this be correct:
1) Draw a graph where HTHSV was on the y axis and temp was on the x axis.
2) Plot the HTHSV at 150c
3) Draw a line with the slope of the VI from the HTHSV plot from right to left
The issue would be knowing how to translate a VI slope that was based on KV to HTHSV.
In my experience, you would definitely notice the difference on start-up even at 70F temp's and that difference would grow as the temp's drop.
Thanks for the reply.
If I wanted to visualize this better and compare oils, would this be correct:
1) Draw a graph where HTHSV was on the y axis and temp was on the x axis.
2) Plot the HTHSV at 150c
3) Draw a line with the slope of the VI from the HTHSV plot from right to left
The issue would be knowing how to translate a VI slope that was based on KV to HTHSV.
Originally Posted By: S65AMG
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
In my experience, you would definitely notice the difference on start-up even at 70F temp's and that difference would grow as the temp's drop.
Thanks for the reply.
If I wanted to visualize this better and compare oils, would this be correct:
1) Draw a graph where HTHSV was on the y axis and temp was on the x axis.
2) Plot the HTHSV at 150c
3) Draw a line with the slope of the VI from the HTHSV plot from right to left
The issue would be knowing how to translate a VI slope that was based on KV to HTHSV.
Yes that would work and I have messed around substituting HTHSV values for KV on a kinematic viscosity calculator. Sometimes you can get HTHSV for an oil measured at 100C in addition to 150C and it does work approximately.
The problem is we just don't have enough data of the oils we're interested in. I
Anyway to help visualize it, the HTHSV @150C spec' is the most important measure followed by VI. If two oils have the same HTHSV but different VIs, a 20 point VI difference will be noticeable at normal operating temp's (80-100C), the higher VI oil being lighter. When you get into very high VI differences of 40 or 50 points and more the higher VI oil will be very noticeably lighter even making up for 0.1cP or 0.2cP difference in HTHSV at normal operating temp's.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
In my experience, you would definitely notice the difference on start-up even at 70F temp's and that difference would grow as the temp's drop.
Thanks for the reply.
If I wanted to visualize this better and compare oils, would this be correct:
1) Draw a graph where HTHSV was on the y axis and temp was on the x axis.
2) Plot the HTHSV at 150c
3) Draw a line with the slope of the VI from the HTHSV plot from right to left
The issue would be knowing how to translate a VI slope that was based on KV to HTHSV.
Yes that would work and I have messed around substituting HTHSV values for KV on a kinematic viscosity calculator. Sometimes you can get HTHSV for an oil measured at 100C in addition to 150C and it does work approximately.
The problem is we just don't have enough data of the oils we're interested in. I
Anyway to help visualize it, the HTHSV @150C spec' is the most important measure followed by VI. If two oils have the same HTHSV but different VIs, a 20 point VI difference will be noticeable at normal operating temp's (80-100C), the higher VI oil being lighter. When you get into very high VI differences of 40 or 50 points and more the higher VI oil will be very noticeably lighter even making up for 0.1cP or 0.2cP difference in HTHSV at normal operating temp's.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
