Why is Redline the only Polyolester oil?
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Where is this quote from? I think if they used nothing but esters for the base oil they'd have to charge A LOT more for the oil than they do.quote:
Originally posted by buster:
When reading this, it does sound like RL doesn't contain any PAO.
It's from their website: Why Redline?
I'd think so too. Dave G has told a few people that their is no PAO in RL. Others have disputed that claim.
I'd think so too. Dave G has told a few people that their is no PAO in RL. Others have disputed that claim.
buster,
I totally agree with you on that. I've been saying it all along that it is not possible for a small company to produce oil superior to such giants as Exxon-Mobil, Shell, and Chevron. They have much more money, experience, and knowledge when it comes to lubricants. I'm not saying that a Redline is bad oil. I'm saying that if one of the above listed companies wanted to produce Polyolester based oils they could without any problem. Most likely resulting oils would show better number compared to redline. Large companies have easy access to testing equipment, dyno stands, and real life tests. What's $100,000 for Mobil to spend on some kind of test or certification? Nothing really, something like a pocket change. As for Redline? Although their ATF D4 satisfies (as they claim) Dexron III requirements they can't afford to pay $3500/year for the Dexron III license from GM. Redline would have to pay some initial fee for the testing. I don't know the exact sum but estimate around $10,000-$30,000. But in that case Redline could license for Mercon, and Mercon V as well.
Besides money and limited market factors there is also a marketing strategy from Exxon-Mobil. They probably get higher profit margin from selling base stocks to Amsoil and Redline than to manufacture and sell product of their own. They could've destroyed Amsoil and Redline in a heartbeat if they wanted to. But then it comes to monopoly and antitrust cases in court. In any case in the current situation Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and few other large companies win without having any troubles of harsh competition or long court cases.
Regards,
What is the most widely known synthetic oil is probably Mobil 1. They got the market share and I don't think Amsoil or Redline is even a threat as far as $ is concerned. You don't see Redline or Amsoil in Walmart and I think Mobil is using their market strategy in their gain. Mobil oil is decent and for the price to consumers they will continue to dominate since the average driver isn't aware or care of extended oil internals. They hear of Mobil 1, they think of warranty and something that will back their product. It's what money can do.
Redline does use very high quality basestocks and a pretty robust additive package. If I weren't using Amsoil, I'd be running the Redline 5w-30 in my Audi TT turbo and their 10w-40 in my old Audi 100 sedan, with a 10,000 mile, oil/filter change interval in both. I'd probably run their 5w-30 as well in my lawn/garden equipment engines....
Folks get all bent out of shape over the cost of Redline and the Amsoil Series 2000/3000, but compared to the overall cost of owning any vehicle, even the best synthetic lubes are dirt cheap....
Tooslick
www.lubedealer.com/Dixie_Synthetics
Folks get all bent out of shape over the cost of Redline and the Amsoil Series 2000/3000, but compared to the overall cost of owning any vehicle, even the best synthetic lubes are dirt cheap....
Tooslick
www.lubedealer.com/Dixie_Synthetics
Patman
Staff member
But since the polyolester base oil costs more, they'd either have to raise their price, or lose profits. So that's why they don't do it. Big companies don't always use the best technology in their oils simply because it isn't profitable. My view on the situation is that small companies like Redline can make better oils because they have no shareholders to answer to!!
Patman hit it right. The only reason that Corporations do or don't do something is because of the bottom line in $$.
As for where oils are sold, it's all marketing. Direct marketing companies say they go straight to the end customer because they want to cut out distributors. WRONG. The fact of the matter is, direct marketing is the ONLY way they can even sell their product. They need the customer/users selling to other users. They've done their math homework.
I know Redline is sold in quite a few retail stores, but Amsoil falls into direct marketing/sales.
As for where oils are sold, it's all marketing. Direct marketing companies say they go straight to the end customer because they want to cut out distributors. WRONG. The fact of the matter is, direct marketing is the ONLY way they can even sell their product. They need the customer/users selling to other users. They've done their math homework.
I know Redline is sold in quite a few retail stores, but Amsoil falls into direct marketing/sales.
I think Patman and Titanium are both correct. Cost is a factor and generall speaking oils found at Walmart shouldn't equal those like RL/Amsoil. M1 however, IMO, is the exception and can match them bc of economies of scale and the fact they make their own additives. EM/Lubrizol/Infineum/Ethyl etc. are the makers of these adds.
As far as POE vs PAO, both RL/Ams/M1 all contain POE + PAO but the ratios are different. RL contains more POE or is ALL POE, so should be more stable. Amsoil, according to TS, is able to lower the NOAK volaitity to 5% on their oils by using better carrier oils. Mobil's speciality oils sold to race teams in the drag racing/ F1 circles have been rumored to be more ester based. Their is more then one way to skin a cat I think is what it comes down to.
If price were the sole factor, why isn't Amsoil's Series 2000 line of oils that run $8.35qt mainly POE and not mostly PAO? THAT is the question I have.
[ April 18, 2004, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
As far as POE vs PAO, both RL/Ams/M1 all contain POE + PAO but the ratios are different. RL contains more POE or is ALL POE, so should be more stable. Amsoil, according to TS, is able to lower the NOAK volaitity to 5% on their oils by using better carrier oils. Mobil's speciality oils sold to race teams in the drag racing/ F1 circles have been rumored to be more ester based. Their is more then one way to skin a cat I think is what it comes down to.
If price were the sole factor, why isn't Amsoil's Series 2000 line of oils that run $8.35qt mainly POE and not mostly PAO? THAT is the question I have.
[ April 18, 2004, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
Patman and Grosssmotto, I again must agree with both of you. But let me clarify my previous post. I think that Mobil makes more money selling POE basestocks to other companies. As I mentioned before it's not only direct profit-loss relationship, there are also operational and marketing expenses. If Exxon-Mobil would calculate (in theory) that they can obtain higher profit (with all expenses counted of course) by selling polyolester oils directly to the customer under Mobil 1 brand they would do so. But as I mentioned some expenses like antitrust court cases are hard to estimate. Besides they damage company's image (thus lower stock price).
Patman it seems like you're saying that Redline works as a charity without making any profit.
We all know this isn't true and they have to make profit to get salary. I'm pretty sure that their profit margin per quart of oil must be higher compared to Mobil due to smaller volume of sale. Thus by buying Redline you actually pay expenses and profits of many companies including Redline, Mobil, additive producers, transportation companies, and etc. I suppose if Mobil was to produce oil of the same formulation as Redline it would cost about $5-5.50/quart (maybe even cheaper) compared to regular M1 at around $4/quart. For the exact pricing we must consult MoleKule as the king of knowledge in lubrication industry.
Regards,
Patman it seems like you're saying that Redline works as a charity without making any profit.
Regards,
pmt, I believe the Mobil synthetic av-lube was a PAO ... and it was early PAO's poor miscibility which led to the lube's inability to scavenge lead, therefore the lead deposit build up in the cylinders, therefore the problems.
Anyway, we had a similar thread to this one about 18 months ago where someone copy & pasted some verbage about polyol from Mobil's website and we talked about it. Normally, I'd be begging for participants to "search" for it ... but I can't imagine what you would use for keywords.
Maybe I'll do some digging around for it. It'd be a shame to lose that discussion forever.
I believe that Mobil never intended M1 to be the "ultimate" engine oil. They meant it to offer some practical advantages over mineral formulations (cold weather pumpability, resistance to oxidation, etc ...), be stable over long periods of time, suitable for a wide variety of internal combustion engine applications and be widely available at a reasonable cost. This description sounds like most M1 formulations.
PAO meets these criteria very well. POE, not nearly so much.
Also, While being a large corporation gives you a tremendous amount of resources and power, there comes a point where size works against you. After working (briefly) for General Electric, I found that if you wanted to pursue a low-volume niche product, it was a daunting task to get approval from the bureaucracy ... and a lot of those executives would look at the expected volumes and conclude with a scornful tone: "We've got bigger fish to fry."
Mobil is better off serving the mass market while letting Red Line, Motul, Synergen, etc ... chase after boutique customers and applications.
--- Bror Jace
Anyway, we had a similar thread to this one about 18 months ago where someone copy & pasted some verbage about polyol from Mobil's website and we talked about it. Normally, I'd be begging for participants to "search" for it ... but I can't imagine what you would use for keywords.
Maybe I'll do some digging around for it. It'd be a shame to lose that discussion forever.
I believe that Mobil never intended M1 to be the "ultimate" engine oil. They meant it to offer some practical advantages over mineral formulations (cold weather pumpability, resistance to oxidation, etc ...), be stable over long periods of time, suitable for a wide variety of internal combustion engine applications and be widely available at a reasonable cost. This description sounds like most M1 formulations.
PAO meets these criteria very well. POE, not nearly so much.
Also, While being a large corporation gives you a tremendous amount of resources and power, there comes a point where size works against you. After working (briefly) for General Electric, I found that if you wanted to pursue a low-volume niche product, it was a daunting task to get approval from the bureaucracy ... and a lot of those executives would look at the expected volumes and conclude with a scornful tone: "We've got bigger fish to fry."
Mobil is better off serving the mass market while letting Red Line, Motul, Synergen, etc ... chase after boutique customers and applications.
--- Bror Jace
Here's one thread ... but it's not exactly the one I was looking for:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001406
--- Bror Jace
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001406
--- Bror Jace
Bror, thats the problem many times.
I completely agree. It is cost related. Regarding big companies vs small. Generally speaking, most mass market products will never exceed a small specialty companies product. If Amsoil/Redline don't continuously improve or exceed the mass marke oils, no one would buy them. It's common sense. With M1, it's a tough call bc they have the advantage in production costs, being they manufacture them however, RL seems to just go all out and makes the best oil they can.
Is this by chance what you are looking for ?
Q: Red Line Oil claims to have 100 percent polyolester base stocks. Are these different or better than the base stocks used in Mobil 1 with SuperSyn™?
A: We are very familiar with polyolesters. In fact, we manufacture them and use them in our aviation jet engine oils such as Mobil Jet Oil II® and Mobil Jet Oil 254® and in our refrigeration compressor lubricants, where the polyolesters are utilized for their compatibility with new HFC refrigerants. Polyolesters are indeed excellent at high-temperature oxidation stability and low volatility.
However, our work on automobile engines and jet engine designs has shown that polyalphaolefins (PAOs) offer the best all-around performance for gasoline engines due to their:
* Being completely compatible with conventional oils and gasoline engine seals.
* Providing both low- and high-temperature performance.
* Providing a stable oil in the presence of water and moisture.
* Having anti-rust capabilities.
Facts are facts. Where did you all get your info.? I spoke with Dave, and he's as tight lipped as anyone about their formulation. All I know is that Red Line smooths out my engine one **** of a lot better and longer than any other brand.
'bike, yes, that's the quote from Mobil's website ... but not exactly what I was looking for.
There was a thread about a year and a half ago where we were discussing that quote and the topic drifted onto the relative benefits of PAOs vs. esters. That's what I was looking for.
We had severe thunderstorms last night so I didn't even think of turning on my computer.
buster, I really think searching is a lot easier than that ... especially when people are looking for oil for a particular car, truck or engine.
This site's search feature is very powerful ... but too many people are too lazy to use it.
--- Bror Jace
There was a thread about a year and a half ago where we were discussing that quote and the topic drifted onto the relative benefits of PAOs vs. esters. That's what I was looking for.
We had severe thunderstorms last night so I didn't even think of turning on my computer.
buster, I really think searching is a lot easier than that ... especially when people are looking for oil for a particular car, truck or engine.
This site's search feature is very powerful ... but too many people are too lazy to use it.
--- Bror Jace
It would not make sense for Mobil to sell a mostly polyolester basestock oil. It would present a couple problems for them.
They'd have to charge more for it, so it wouldn't sell in large volume. It wouldn't be worth their effort. Most people don't even want to spend the 4 bucks for the existing Mobil-1.
Also, if they were selling both types of synthetic it would imply that the original Mobil-1 was lacking in some way, and they would probably actually lose some of their current Mobil-1 customers.
As others have said, large companies such as Exxon-Mobil are beholden to only one thing - the share holders. That means stock performance is paramount, and that's what drives all decisions.
They'd have to charge more for it, so it wouldn't sell in large volume. It wouldn't be worth their effort. Most people don't even want to spend the 4 bucks for the existing Mobil-1.
Also, if they were selling both types of synthetic it would imply that the original Mobil-1 was lacking in some way, and they would probably actually lose some of their current Mobil-1 customers.
As others have said, large companies such as Exxon-Mobil are beholden to only one thing - the share holders. That means stock performance is paramount, and that's what drives all decisions.
- Status
Similar threads
