Not much chance of that. it would twist the pickup size+ sized parts in the drivetrain into junk: transmission, transfer case if 4WD, driveshaft, diffs, axles....

Charlie

YOU MORE THAN OK WITH A GOOD DINO OIL SUCH AS ROTELLA, DELVAC, OR DELO. IT IS MUCH CHEAPER TOO SO YOU COULD INVEST THAT $$ IN OTHER AREAS OF YOUR TRUCK. I KNOW....I AM A FORMER SYNTHETIC JUNKIE MYSELF WHO IS AT LEAST $200 RICHER THIS YEAR DUE TO REHAB AND MY TRUCK IS RUNNING AND ANALYZING MORE THAN OK.

I disagree completely - the Cummins 8.3 puts out 350hp and 1000tq at it's hottest tune - turned up 3/4 ton trucks are putting out these kind of numbers and more all day with relatively minor mods and beefing. No reason a 1 1/4 ton couldn't handle them.

In fact, the F450 is rated for 33K GCWR, 16K bumper, and 24K F/W or Gooseneck. If that frame and axle can withstand 33K but not 1000 foot pounds, I'd be extremely concerned. This is solidly into medium duty territory, and the 8.3 is a medium duty motor. In fact - the Cummins ILS9 is a medium duty motor as well with 380hp and 1300tq. Yeehaw!

I would just like to be able to have a motor putting out this level of power to live as long as a diesel should. The engines are currently the limiting factor in diesel pickups - not the chassis.

I respectfully beg to differ. Look at the drivetrain parts behind motors with these outputs. That's all I'm going to say.

Charlie

I use Red Line products bumper to bumper in everything I own with an engine, especially my Dodge Ram w/ Cummins and race cars. The 15W-40 and now the 5W-40 are the best diesel oils IMO, and the VOAs have proven it over and over again. As for cost, it's chump change compared to my investment, and is a no brainer. Think about it.

We all "think about it".

VOAs are intersting; they predict the possibilities via theory.
But UOAs are telling; they report results that are historical and factual.

I'll take UOAs over VOAs any day. And there are hundreds of UOAs that show, for most circumstances, the performance of RL (and RP for that matter) do not return the investment on a proportional scale. You can get similar (or at times, even "better") wear results from lesser investments.

To spend more money and get a good ROI is smart; to waste more money on poor ROI is foolish.

To each his own, but that's what I think.

My little 5.9 Cummins is turned up to 700lb/ft, but is only pushed on hills pulling my 13,000 5th wheel. By ring gear looks like [censored], and will be replaced soon. On my 3rd NV4500. I agree 3/4tons are turned up to whatever, they'll go thru lots of trans/diffs if they're doing it "all day". BTW, i'm at 260K miles on walmart oil and fram filters its whole life. Never touched the engine except for water pump. 21MPG, no consumption.

Oh no, you used reason.

I'm still thinking about it...

Depends on how you interpret UOAs. RL has shown time and time again that once you let the chemistry settle in it does exceptionally well in engines that are notoriously hard on oil.

what the heck...these computers at work are sub standard. Admin please delete 689 and 690.

YEs and both UOA's and VOA's will never bring you any closer to finding which oil is better. We know that a UOA can not be relied on to predict wear for the casual user.

Unless you are Doug Hillary, your UOA means NOTHING. It's a useless piece of paper other than maybe catching a underlying problem and for determining OCI's with a given oil brand/type.

I am really blown away that you are still saying UOA's are showing engine wear. No doubt there are other good choices, but to say lesser oils have less wear than RL and basing that of off UOA's is ridiculous.

It's not rediculous. It's reasonable and proven science. Allow me to explain. And I'll admit that I'm not a paid tribologist. I'm not Doug or Terry. But I am a statistical process quality control engineer, so I do have some fairly good basis for understanding the methodology involved.

I'd be the first to agree that one UOA does not prove much, but many successive UOAs can show trends and ranges that will announce abnormal wear.

RL and RP tend to have greater wear metal numbers in a UOA. They will claim that it's "chemistry" based reactions; they could be right. But the problem with inherrently high wear numbers as a base-line is the ability of those same high readings to mask and/or obscure events that would be easily recongnizable with lower "normal" readings. The magnitude of the ppm change due to some event can be shaded by the % of change. Products like RP and RL mask those numbers because they carry high residual nubmers. That's just plain old math; you can't argue that. Yet RP and RL will tell you that's "normal". Perhaps, but only from their perspective. I would prefer my wear metal counts to be as low as possible, allowing for immediate identification of subtle changes.

Further, it depends upon how you want to argue the point of "wear". There is big wear from major events, and there's small wear. But size of particles and % of particles are not always the same thing. A UOA can tell us PPM, but not the size of the particles. RL and RP would have us believe that higher chemistry wear will be mistaken for true wear. But where I come from, the shedding of particles it typically just "wear", regardless of it's origin. If a dog poops in your yard, are you going to argue about it's size and origin? It's undesireable, regardless of where it came from or how big it is. Regarding chemical wear, it's still metal components shedding particles from their place of origin. I don't care if they are big or small; I don't want them leaving the bearing, the cylinder, the crank or whatever. In that sense, high wear PPM counts from RL or RP indicates that there is metal leaving metal.

I completely acknowledge and agree that teardown analysis is the only TRUE way to know how well a lubricant has done. But that process presumes that:
1) you have used that same fluid brand/grade for a long period, to exclude other variants.
2) you have (nearly) unlimited time, money and resouces to tear down your engine, tranny, diff, or whatever.

For most of us, a UOA gives reasonable insight into the world of lubricants, if we understand their benefits and their limitations. UOAs are NOT the panacea of lube knowledge, but they are a supporting chunk of it. UOAs can directly advise you of your lubricant health, and indirectly advise you of your equipment health.

This whole thread started because someone (an admitted synethic junkie) want's affirmation of his use of RL. They want to know if 10k miles on a PSD is doable. Well - maybe so, maybe not. A UOA should be able to tell him. My point is that a VOA only predicts how the oil might behave; UOAs tell you how it actually performed. Looking at some VOAs or PDFs is not near as informational as seeing UOAs.

UOAs can certainly show wear. And at times it's not "normal" wear, but catastrophic wear. I recall a post on another site where we helped diagnose a problem with grossly high wear numbers. The poor chap had plumbed his Amsoil bypass system backwards, and was getting nearly zero flow to the engine! Here, a UOA certainly was instrumental in quickly pointing to a problem outside the contribution of oil itself, but the oil was the "carrier" of the information.

Perahps that better defines my view.

Thanks again, dnewton3, for getting to the heart of the matter. I enjoy reading your posts.

I stayed at a Holiday in express last night

Analysis is very important in my world especially looking at fuel dilution aids in diagnosing Injector cups or Injector oring issues. I'm not near smart enough to tell exactly whats going on by a sample but I do agree their are advantages to doing UOA