joey at motul told me long ago about 300v oils being all ester..i don't know about now with the ester core oils.i will call motul.
Red Line: chemstry tweaks across the street range
- Thread starter tudorart
- Start date
- Status
I don't want to make much of this, because personally I don't care what has changed (I know RL uses more POE than any other oil blender I'm aware of), however here is something to consider:
Quote:
That's conceivable, but it doesn't explain the loss of HTHS viscosity, relative to the kinematic viscosities @ 100C. That's a function of the VI of the base oils you use.
I have no doubt the base oil blend has changed. Perhaps they're blending POE's with Group 3 base stocks, instead of more expensive PAO's? That would cause these same changes to FP's and HTHS viscosity.
What they're saying may be true - but it's not the complete story....
Quote:
That's conceivable, but it doesn't explain the loss of HTHS viscosity, relative to the kinematic viscosities @ 100C. That's a function of the VI of the base oils you use.
I have no doubt the base oil blend has changed. Perhaps they're blending POE's with Group 3 base stocks, instead of more expensive PAO's? That would cause these same changes to FP's and HTHS viscosity.
What they're saying may be true - but it's not the complete story....
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
joey at motul told me long ago about 300v oils being all ester..i don't know about now with the ester core oils.i will call motul.
This is from last year, before the Ester Core line came out: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxnjLrqu5mkvMVBBUWNnQzI2WTA
I still can't figure out how RL can beat the fuel economy of a ACEA C2 with the Euro 5W40 and not with the 5W30. I must be missing something.
joey at motul told me long ago about 300v oils being all ester..i don't know about now with the ester core oils.i will call motul.
This is from last year, before the Ester Core line came out: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxnjLrqu5mkvMVBBUWNnQzI2WTA
I still can't figure out how RL can beat the fuel economy of a ACEA C2 with the Euro 5W40 and not with the 5W30. I must be missing something.
Originally Posted By: buster
I don't want to make much of this, because personally I don't care what has changed (I know RL uses more POE than any other oil blender I'm aware of), however here is something to consider:
Quote:
That's conceivable, but it doesn't explain the loss of HTHS viscosity, relative to the kinematic viscosities @ 100C. That's a function of the VI of the base oils you use.
I have no doubt the base oil blend has changed. Perhaps they're blending POE's with Group 3 base stocks, instead of more expensive PAO's? That would cause these same changes to FP's and HTHS viscosity.
What they're saying may be true - but it's not the complete story....
FWIW, I just spoke with Dave at Redline. He stated that the base oil has not changed at all and is still 100% POE/PAO. The only changes to their formulation have been the additives necessary to meet ACEA requirements.
I don't want to make much of this, because personally I don't care what has changed (I know RL uses more POE than any other oil blender I'm aware of), however here is something to consider:
Quote:
That's conceivable, but it doesn't explain the loss of HTHS viscosity, relative to the kinematic viscosities @ 100C. That's a function of the VI of the base oils you use.
I have no doubt the base oil blend has changed. Perhaps they're blending POE's with Group 3 base stocks, instead of more expensive PAO's? That would cause these same changes to FP's and HTHS viscosity.
What they're saying may be true - but it's not the complete story....
FWIW, I just spoke with Dave at Redline. He stated that the base oil has not changed at all and is still 100% POE/PAO. The only changes to their formulation have been the additives necessary to meet ACEA requirements.
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
joey at motul told me long ago about 300v oils being all ester..i don't know about now with the ester core oils.i will call motul.
Are you sure about that? He has flat-out told me that 100% ester is not the right approach for an oil -- too expensive and lacks certain properties an oil needs.
joey at motul told me long ago about 300v oils being all ester..i don't know about now with the ester core oils.i will call motul.
Are you sure about that? He has flat-out told me that 100% ester is not the right approach for an oil -- too expensive and lacks certain properties an oil needs.
after reading the safty data sheet it says the oil has heavy parafinic distilates what kind of junk is that????? is this synthetic or not?is motul snowing us?
It's probably a carrier for some of the additives.
did motul dumb down the oil and then give it a fancy name? such as ester core
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
did motul dumb down the oil and then give it a fancy name? such as ester core
Again, Joey says they have switched to a new ester. Whether its better or worse remains to be seen. Not enough people running it yet.
It's their halo product so I don't think they'd cheap out on it.
did motul dumb down the oil and then give it a fancy name? such as ester core
Again, Joey says they have switched to a new ester. Whether its better or worse remains to be seen. Not enough people running it yet.
It's their halo product so I don't think they'd cheap out on it.
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
joey at motul told me long ago about 300v oils being all ester..i don't know about now with the ester core oils.i will call motul.
Are you sure about that? He has flat-out told me that 100% ester is not the right approach for an oil -- too expensive and lacks certain properties an oil needs.
I'm not even sure if it is possible to have a functioning motor oil made of 100% ester base stocks, at ANY price, let alone a reasonable, and affordable cost.
Molacule?? Others?
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
joey at motul told me long ago about 300v oils being all ester..i don't know about now with the ester core oils.i will call motul.
Are you sure about that? He has flat-out told me that 100% ester is not the right approach for an oil -- too expensive and lacks certain properties an oil needs.
I'm not even sure if it is possible to have a functioning motor oil made of 100% ester base stocks, at ANY price, let alone a reasonable, and affordable cost.
Molacule?? Others?
thankyou deparm.i too would like to understand that more.
So the new friction modified 5W40 recommended target is (from the bottle):
VW 505.00, VW 505.01 (1999), VW 502.00, VW 500.00
BMW LL-01/LL-98
MB 229.3
API SM/CF, ACEA A3/B3/B4
GM dexos1 / GM-LL-B-025
Porsche A40
PSA B71 2296
RN 710/700
and also API SN,SL
VW 505.00, VW 505.01 (1999), VW 502.00, VW 500.00
BMW LL-01/LL-98
MB 229.3
API SM/CF, ACEA A3/B3/B4
GM dexos1 / GM-LL-B-025
Porsche A40
PSA B71 2296
RN 710/700
and also API SN,SL
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JAG
Originally Posted By: tudorart
Originally Posted By: JAG
Densities close to 0.9 are strong indicators that a large percentage of the base oil mixture are esters, since they are typically considerably more dense than other base oil groups on an equal viscosity basis. Most non-ester motor oil densities are between 0.85 to 0.865.
Right,
That's also the reason they score lower in kinematic viscosity tests, where gravity is a factor or better said it isn't.
That's right. I don't think most people realize that. The denser oils have larger gravitational force per unit volume pulling on them, increasing the tendency to flow in the kinematic viscosity tests, thus resulting in a lower viscosity value than if they had lower density. This effect does not happen in the HTHS test because it's not a gravity-powered test. Net result is a higher HTHS viscosity to kinematic viscosity ratio due to the higher density.
Ok can someone explain how in the world Amsoil Euro 5W30 gets better CCS values than RL's.
Is the CCS test sensitive to different densities? I'd assume NO, since results are given in cP already.
All things are pretty much equal between the two with RL being just a tad thicker at both high and low shear @150C and having a higher VI so that should get overcome by the VI down the road.
More than that, even at 100C/low shear the dynamic viscosity is almost the same for both after you factor out the density. Red Line just becomes the thinner one at 100C by 0.05cP. So it already caught up with Amsoil by 100C (low shear that is).
I guess it just shows how unpredictable the CCS results may be and why a viscosity calculator can't be used for lower temp predictions ...but I really didn't expect this much difference here since both base stocks are good low temp performers in general.
Originally Posted By: tudorart
Originally Posted By: JAG
Densities close to 0.9 are strong indicators that a large percentage of the base oil mixture are esters, since they are typically considerably more dense than other base oil groups on an equal viscosity basis. Most non-ester motor oil densities are between 0.85 to 0.865.
Right,
That's also the reason they score lower in kinematic viscosity tests, where gravity is a factor or better said it isn't.
That's right. I don't think most people realize that. The denser oils have larger gravitational force per unit volume pulling on them, increasing the tendency to flow in the kinematic viscosity tests, thus resulting in a lower viscosity value than if they had lower density. This effect does not happen in the HTHS test because it's not a gravity-powered test. Net result is a higher HTHS viscosity to kinematic viscosity ratio due to the higher density.
Ok can someone explain how in the world Amsoil Euro 5W30 gets better CCS values than RL's.
Is the CCS test sensitive to different densities? I'd assume NO, since results are given in cP already.
All things are pretty much equal between the two with RL being just a tad thicker at both high and low shear @150C and having a higher VI so that should get overcome by the VI down the road.
More than that, even at 100C/low shear the dynamic viscosity is almost the same for both after you factor out the density. Red Line just becomes the thinner one at 100C by 0.05cP. So it already caught up with Amsoil by 100C (low shear that is).
I guess it just shows how unpredictable the CCS results may be and why a viscosity calculator can't be used for lower temp predictions ...but I really didn't expect this much difference here since both base stocks are good low temp performers in general.
You cannot use a viscosity calculator to predict extreme cold viscosity performance. It is the characteristics of the base oil chemistries and molecular weights plus PP suppressants that determine CCS and MRV values.
A kinematic viscosity calculator is good down to about -10C to -15C and even then you shouldn't compare different oil chemistries directly.
The best predictors of start-up viscosities at non extreme temp's is still HTHSV and VI. Oils with the higher VI for a given HTHSV will be lighter on start-up and the larger the VI difference the lighter the higher VI oil will be.
A kinematic viscosity calculator is good down to about -10C to -15C and even then you shouldn't compare different oil chemistries directly.
The best predictors of start-up viscosities at non extreme temp's is still HTHSV and VI. Oils with the higher VI for a given HTHSV will be lighter on start-up and the larger the VI difference the lighter the higher VI oil will be.
Yeah. Thanks. No, I have never used it under 0C but if you say it works down to 15C it's good to know.
Anyway it's interesting that Amsoil had the initial formula CCS at 6350 (-30) and a better Noack along with 3.7cP HTHS....which is very similar to RL no's. For some reason they changed into a better CCS. I am thinking they had a reason other than cost for that change. Not being on the approved oil list they can make changes on the fly and as soon as feedback gets to them...that's what I think happened.
Anyway it's interesting that Amsoil had the initial formula CCS at 6350 (-30) and a better Noack along with 3.7cP HTHS....which is very similar to RL no's. For some reason they changed into a better CCS. I am thinking they had a reason other than cost for that change. Not being on the approved oil list they can make changes on the fly and as soon as feedback gets to them...that's what I think happened.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
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.
You mean this test?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv53RbvgfGc&sns=em
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.
You mean this test?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv53RbvgfGc&sns=em
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
