That statement about the cost of certification has been made many times on this Forum but never with any actual numbers being presented ?
Redline for N54 BMW engine?
- Thread starter srbarnes4ever
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: 4wheeldog
Getting actual certifications is expensive, so a relatively small independent producer like Redline tends not to spend the bucks. It is of unrivaled quality, but as the other poster pointed out.......Mobil 1 is better than it needs be, cheaper, and readily available. Redline can only be incrementally better, if it is better.
Getting actual certification, meaning sending oil for certification is not expensive. I was part of that process, testing VW504.00/507.00 oil, and small producer send it after all tests to VW. That part is cheap, when it comes to that case, it was around 3,000 euros. RL and others are not doing it probably bcs there is something there that they think is beneficial to oil, but maybe is problem when it comes to certification.
First rebuttal to the claim that certifications are expensive.
RL is not cheap anywhere. eddyw raises some valid points here.
What is RL's real driver for lack of certifications for the oils, if 3000 Euros is correct then that is cheap, so it can't be the cost hmmm....
Originally Posted By: 4wheeldog
Getting actual certifications is expensive, so a relatively small independent producer like Redline tends not to spend the bucks. It is of unrivaled quality, but as the other poster pointed out.......Mobil 1 is better than it needs be, cheaper, and readily available. Redline can only be incrementally better, if it is better.
Getting actual certification, meaning sending oil for certification is not expensive. I was part of that process, testing VW504.00/507.00 oil, and small producer send it after all tests to VW. That part is cheap, when it comes to that case, it was around 3,000 euros. RL and others are not doing it probably bcs there is something there that they think is beneficial to oil, but maybe is problem when it comes to certification.
First rebuttal to the claim that certifications are expensive.
RL is not cheap anywhere. eddyw raises some valid points here.
What is RL's real driver for lack of certifications for the oils, if 3000 Euros is correct then that is cheap, so it can't be the cost hmmm....
Last edited:
red line stated to me their oils are far above the cert process they don't want a cheap oil and simply want to be the very best! I agree!
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
red line stated to me their oils are far above the cert process they don't want a cheap oil and simply want to be the very best! I agree!
That's wonderful, but it certainly doesn't in any way support your previous statement that the product is certified.
red line stated to me their oils are far above the cert process they don't want a cheap oil and simply want to be the very best! I agree!
That's wonderful, but it certainly doesn't in any way support your previous statement that the product is certified.
Originally Posted By: bruno
That statement about the cost of certification has been made many times on this Forum but never with any actual numbers being presented ?
EDYVW posted proof some times ago, and that pdf is lingering somewhere around here.
In the end, you have much smaller oil producers then RL, especially in Europe that have certification.
That statement about the cost of certification has been made many times on this Forum but never with any actual numbers being presented ?
EDYVW posted proof some times ago, and that pdf is lingering somewhere around here.
In the end, you have much smaller oil producers then RL, especially in Europe that have certification.
Originally Posted By: B320i
I've noticed this with some of the minor oil players. Some of them will suggest:
"Meets or Exceeds the following specifications for oils.... {e.g.} LL01, MB-XYZ.OO, VW-ASDF-XX" (and so on).
Now this is all well and good, but you just can't say without a manufacturer approval.
The problem is, that wording is legitimate, when used under the right circumstances, and is used by some of the big players, too. Meets or exceeds is perfectly valid to use when speaking of ACEA specifications. It's also valid to use it when speaking of an outdated specification, although "Recommended for" is what I usually see from the big players in such a scenario.
I've noticed this with some of the minor oil players. Some of them will suggest:
"Meets or Exceeds the following specifications for oils.... {e.g.} LL01, MB-XYZ.OO, VW-ASDF-XX" (and so on).
Now this is all well and good, but you just can't say without a manufacturer approval.
The problem is, that wording is legitimate, when used under the right circumstances, and is used by some of the big players, too. Meets or exceeds is perfectly valid to use when speaking of ACEA specifications. It's also valid to use it when speaking of an outdated specification, although "Recommended for" is what I usually see from the big players in such a scenario.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: B320i
I've noticed this with some of the minor oil players. Some of them will suggest:
"Meets or Exceeds the following specifications for oils.... {e.g.} LL01, MB-XYZ.OO, VW-ASDF-XX" (and so on).
Now this is all well and good, but you just can't say without a manufacturer approval.
The problem is, that wording is legitimate, when used under the right circumstances, and is used by some of the big players, too. Meets or exceeds is perfectly valid to use when speaking of ACEA specifications. It's also valid to use it when speaking of an outdated specification, although "Recommended for" is what I usually see from the big players in such a scenario.
I've seen "recommended for" from our local group, Penrite, when the oil itself is not actually certified.
To me, "meets or exceeds" suggests "could be this, or it could be more, YMMV"
Originally Posted By: B320i
I've noticed this with some of the minor oil players. Some of them will suggest:
"Meets or Exceeds the following specifications for oils.... {e.g.} LL01, MB-XYZ.OO, VW-ASDF-XX" (and so on).
Now this is all well and good, but you just can't say without a manufacturer approval.
The problem is, that wording is legitimate, when used under the right circumstances, and is used by some of the big players, too. Meets or exceeds is perfectly valid to use when speaking of ACEA specifications. It's also valid to use it when speaking of an outdated specification, although "Recommended for" is what I usually see from the big players in such a scenario.
I've seen "recommended for" from our local group, Penrite, when the oil itself is not actually certified.
To me, "meets or exceeds" suggests "could be this, or it could be more, YMMV"
Yep, that's exactly what one has to watch when it's a current certification. Does one trust the supplier, or not? I'd be inclined to believe Red Line. However, we have seen some less scrupulous parties claim all kinds of certification, such as something being okay for A5/B5 and A3/B3 A3/B4 at the same time, which is simply nonsense.
To be fair on Penrite, they DO have a range of Approved Lubricants
http://www.penriteoil.com.au/manufacture_approvals.php
And looking at the approval docs gives an example of how "expensive" the testing regime is to the likes of Penrite.
http://www.penriteoil.com.au/oem_pdfs/Enviro Plus 5W-40 BMW Longlife-04 April 2014.pdf
http://www.penriteoil.com.au/manufacture_approvals.php
And looking at the approval docs gives an example of how "expensive" the testing regime is to the likes of Penrite.
http://www.penriteoil.com.au/oem_pdfs/Enviro Plus 5W-40 BMW Longlife-04 April 2014.pdf
- Status
Similar threads
