If I were the guy in charge of Red Line, I also would have made cheaper formulations for those that were to get formally approved. Cheaper ingredients can get the job done, so maximize profit. That doesn't mean the regular Red Line oils aren't good enough to pass the tests.
Lowest Noack oil for my 2018 VW GTI
- Thread starter garlicbreadman
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by JAG
If I were the guy in charge of Red Line, I also would have made cheaper formulations for those that were to get formally approved. Cheaper ingredients can get the job done, so maximize profit. That doesn't mean the regular Red Line oils aren't good enough to pass the tests.
New formulation costs money. If you already have oil at disposal and claim to meet and exceed, then use that. Redline was all about 100% synthetic, now their falsely claim that BMW LL04 requires GroupIII base in amount higher of 50%. That is absolutely not true as there are numerous approved BMW LL04 oils with Group IV and V base.
On top of that NOACK of that oil is 11%, which means it will probably not be MB229.51 approved.
On 5W30 side they have also mediocre oil that got some approvals.
Company that is constantly involved in that shady marketing should be avoided by all means.
If I were the guy in charge of Red Line, I also would have made cheaper formulations for those that were to get formally approved. Cheaper ingredients can get the job done, so maximize profit. That doesn't mean the regular Red Line oils aren't good enough to pass the tests.
New formulation costs money. If you already have oil at disposal and claim to meet and exceed, then use that. Redline was all about 100% synthetic, now their falsely claim that BMW LL04 requires GroupIII base in amount higher of 50%. That is absolutely not true as there are numerous approved BMW LL04 oils with Group IV and V base.
On top of that NOACK of that oil is 11%, which means it will probably not be MB229.51 approved.
On 5W30 side they have also mediocre oil that got some approvals.
Company that is constantly involved in that shady marketing should be avoided by all means.
Last edited:
It is likely that existing Redline oils did not meet the specification. Why else would you develop a separate and differently formulated product line if the existing one could be tested and found compliant?
I'm guessing it is like some of the Amsoil products which claim they are acceptable for use for certain specifications or approvals but they can't meet the spec for whatever reason. For example, several of their product lines say "Use AMSOIL Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil in applications that require any of the following specifications" and list GM dexos1 Gen 2 in that list. But then they also go on to say "Fortified with detergents that exceed the dexos 1 Gen 2 sulfated ash specification." Amsoil wishes to word it so it appears that it is a good thing it doesn't meet this part of the spec ("Fortified with detergents") but bottom line, it does not meet the spec and they tell you why. Redline most likely cannot meet some aspect just like the Amsoil products do not.
I'm guessing it is like some of the Amsoil products which claim they are acceptable for use for certain specifications or approvals but they can't meet the spec for whatever reason. For example, several of their product lines say "Use AMSOIL Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil in applications that require any of the following specifications" and list GM dexos1 Gen 2 in that list. But then they also go on to say "Fortified with detergents that exceed the dexos 1 Gen 2 sulfated ash specification." Amsoil wishes to word it so it appears that it is a good thing it doesn't meet this part of the spec ("Fortified with detergents") but bottom line, it does not meet the spec and they tell you why. Redline most likely cannot meet some aspect just like the Amsoil products do not.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by JAG
If I were the guy in charge of Red Line, I also would have made cheaper formulations for those that were to get formally approved. Cheaper ingredients can get the job done, so maximize profit. That doesn't mean the regular Red Line oils aren't good enough to pass the tests.
New formulation costs money. If you already have oil at disposal and claim to meet and exceed, then use that. Redline was all about 100% synthetic, now their falsely claim that BMW LL04 requires GroupIII base in amount higher of 50%. That is absolutely not true as there are numerous approved BMW LL04 oils with Group IV and V base.
On top of that NOACK of that oil is 11%, which means it will probably not be MB229.51 approved.
On 5W30 side they have also mediocre oil that got some approvals.
Company that is constantly involved in that shady marketing should be avoided by all means.
There are chemical limits on oils meeting specifications, and since typical Red Line oils are highly additivized, they violate most or all oil specs' chemical limits. New formulations do cost money but we don't know how much it would cost them to formulate/test/reformulate/re-test, etc., the oils. They can estimate that and can do the math on how many bottles of formally approved oils they would have to sell to make up the cost of that process. I don't think they would have had a need to do it because of the chemical limit matter, requiring new formulations, in my opinion.
I did not see Red Line say anything about at least 50% Group III for BMW LL04. What I see is:
"FULL SYNTHETIC -- OEM-required Group III/Group IV PAO Base Stocks".
I interpret that to mean that the oil specs that are met require synthetic base oils only, as defined in the United States (no Group I or II base stocks).
The 11% volatility: I see that and I also thought MB 229.5 requires 10% or less. I did check for formal MB 229.5 approval for Red Line 5W-40 and they got it. MB was satisfied that it met the spec.
I don't know what you saw that made you conclude that the 5W-30 version is mediocre. It's not a big deal to me...I'd never use those formally approved Red Line oils. I just posted because it seems that your opinions on this topic may stand on shaky footing and I thought it would be good if you reassessed the matter.
Originally Posted by JAG
If I were the guy in charge of Red Line, I also would have made cheaper formulations for those that were to get formally approved. Cheaper ingredients can get the job done, so maximize profit. That doesn't mean the regular Red Line oils aren't good enough to pass the tests.
New formulation costs money. If you already have oil at disposal and claim to meet and exceed, then use that. Redline was all about 100% synthetic, now their falsely claim that BMW LL04 requires GroupIII base in amount higher of 50%. That is absolutely not true as there are numerous approved BMW LL04 oils with Group IV and V base.
On top of that NOACK of that oil is 11%, which means it will probably not be MB229.51 approved.
On 5W30 side they have also mediocre oil that got some approvals.
Company that is constantly involved in that shady marketing should be avoided by all means.
There are chemical limits on oils meeting specifications, and since typical Red Line oils are highly additivized, they violate most or all oil specs' chemical limits. New formulations do cost money but we don't know how much it would cost them to formulate/test/reformulate/re-test, etc., the oils. They can estimate that and can do the math on how many bottles of formally approved oils they would have to sell to make up the cost of that process. I don't think they would have had a need to do it because of the chemical limit matter, requiring new formulations, in my opinion.
I did not see Red Line say anything about at least 50% Group III for BMW LL04. What I see is:
"FULL SYNTHETIC -- OEM-required Group III/Group IV PAO Base Stocks".
I interpret that to mean that the oil specs that are met require synthetic base oils only, as defined in the United States (no Group I or II base stocks).
The 11% volatility: I see that and I also thought MB 229.5 requires 10% or less. I did check for formal MB 229.5 approval for Red Line 5W-40 and they got it. MB was satisfied that it met the spec.
I don't know what you saw that made you conclude that the 5W-30 version is mediocre. It's not a big deal to me...I'd never use those formally approved Red Line oils. I just posted because it seems that your opinions on this topic may stand on shaky footing and I thought it would be good if you reassessed the matter.
Originally Posted by JAG
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by JAG
If I were the guy in charge of Red Line, I also would have made cheaper formulations for those that were to get formally approved. Cheaper ingredients can get the job done, so maximize profit. That doesn't mean the regular Red Line oils aren't good enough to pass the tests.
New formulation costs money. If you already have oil at disposal and claim to meet and exceed, then use that. Redline was all about 100% synthetic, now their falsely claim that BMW LL04 requires GroupIII base in amount higher of 50%. That is absolutely not true as there are numerous approved BMW LL04 oils with Group IV and V base.
On top of that NOACK of that oil is 11%, which means it will probably not be MB229.51 approved.
On 5W30 side they have also mediocre oil that got some approvals.
Company that is constantly involved in that shady marketing should be avoided by all means.
There are chemical limits on oils meeting specifications, and since typical Red Line oils are highly additivized, they violate most or all oil specs' chemical limits. New formulations do cost money but we don't know how much it would cost them to formulate/test/reformulate/re-test, etc., the oils. They can estimate that and can do the math on how many bottles of formally approved oils they would have to sell to make up the cost of that process. I don't think they would have had a need to do it because of the chemical limit matter, requiring new formulations, in my opinion.
I did not see Red Line say anything about at least 50% Group III for BMW LL04. What I see is:
"FULL SYNTHETIC -- OEM-required Group III/Group IV PAO Base Stocks".
I interpret that to mean that the oil specs that are met require synthetic base oils only, as defined in the United States (no Group I or II base stocks).
The 11% volatility: I see that and I also thought MB 229.5 requires 10% or less. I did check for formal MB 229.5 approval for Red Line 5W-40 and they got it. MB was satisfied that it met the spec.
I don't know what you saw that made you conclude that the 5W-30 version is mediocre. It's not a big deal to me...I'd never use those formally approved Red Line oils. I just posted because it seems that your opinions on this topic may stand on shaky footing and I thought it would be good if you reassessed the matter.
I think all that is understood. I very well understand that they cannot get approval bcs. of additives, which means it DOES NOT meet or exceeds approvals.
Also, BMW DOES NOT require Group III. Case in point Castrol 0W30 LL04 (which we in the US do not get) which is currently only Castrol next to 10W60 that is PAO base stock.
Approved 5W30 is mediocre compare to other 5W30 oils, that was my point.
Developing new oil costs upward of $300,000 if properly done. I was involved in testing VW504.00/507.00 oils and we went through three VW's to test oil, plus all other testings.
So, maybe Redline does not test as oil company from Central Europe that no one heard of or their claims about "meet" and "exceed" is just bunch of BS.
PP Euro L has NOACK 11% and is MB 229.51 approved, except PP Euro L costs much less then Redline.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by JAG
If I were the guy in charge of Red Line, I also would have made cheaper formulations for those that were to get formally approved. Cheaper ingredients can get the job done, so maximize profit. That doesn't mean the regular Red Line oils aren't good enough to pass the tests.
New formulation costs money. If you already have oil at disposal and claim to meet and exceed, then use that. Redline was all about 100% synthetic, now their falsely claim that BMW LL04 requires GroupIII base in amount higher of 50%. That is absolutely not true as there are numerous approved BMW LL04 oils with Group IV and V base.
On top of that NOACK of that oil is 11%, which means it will probably not be MB229.51 approved.
On 5W30 side they have also mediocre oil that got some approvals.
Company that is constantly involved in that shady marketing should be avoided by all means.
There are chemical limits on oils meeting specifications, and since typical Red Line oils are highly additivized, they violate most or all oil specs' chemical limits. New formulations do cost money but we don't know how much it would cost them to formulate/test/reformulate/re-test, etc., the oils. They can estimate that and can do the math on how many bottles of formally approved oils they would have to sell to make up the cost of that process. I don't think they would have had a need to do it because of the chemical limit matter, requiring new formulations, in my opinion.
I did not see Red Line say anything about at least 50% Group III for BMW LL04. What I see is:
"FULL SYNTHETIC -- OEM-required Group III/Group IV PAO Base Stocks".
I interpret that to mean that the oil specs that are met require synthetic base oils only, as defined in the United States (no Group I or II base stocks).
The 11% volatility: I see that and I also thought MB 229.5 requires 10% or less. I did check for formal MB 229.5 approval for Red Line 5W-40 and they got it. MB was satisfied that it met the spec.
I don't know what you saw that made you conclude that the 5W-30 version is mediocre. It's not a big deal to me...I'd never use those formally approved Red Line oils. I just posted because it seems that your opinions on this topic may stand on shaky footing and I thought it would be good if you reassessed the matter.
I think all that is understood. I very well understand that they cannot get approval bcs. of additives, which means it DOES NOT meet or exceeds approvals.
Also, BMW DOES NOT require Group III. Case in point Castrol 0W30 LL04 (which we in the US do not get) which is currently only Castrol next to 10W60 that is PAO base stock.
Approved 5W30 is mediocre compare to other 5W30 oils, that was my point.
Developing new oil costs upward of $300,000 if properly done. I was involved in testing VW504.00/507.00 oils and we went through three VW's to test oil, plus all other testings.
So, maybe Redline does not test as oil company from Central Europe that no one heard of or their claims about "meet" and "exceed" is just bunch of BS.
PP Euro L has NOACK 11% and is MB 229.51 approved, except PP Euro L costs much less then Redline.
Edit, Doh
Is it legal in the US to state that your oil meets or exceeds manufacturer's approvals such as Amsoil and Redline do? I would think that is false advertising and would be easy enough to disprove if a mainstream oil company was interested in doing so.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by harrydog
Is it legal in the US to state that your oil meets or exceeds manufacturer's approvals such as Amsoil and Redline do? I would think that is false advertising and would be easy enough to disprove if a mainstream oil company was interested in doing so.
I think they are just not interested in doing so. It would be vehicle manufacturer that would have to do it.
Is it legal in the US to state that your oil meets or exceeds manufacturer's approvals such as Amsoil and Redline do? I would think that is false advertising and would be easy enough to disprove if a mainstream oil company was interested in doing so.
I think they are just not interested in doing so. It would be vehicle manufacturer that would have to do it.
Originally Posted by edyvw
PP Euro L has NOACK 11% and is MB 229.51 approved, except PP Euro L costs much less then Redline.
where have you seen a published number for PP Euro L noack? And isn't the above contradictory? (229.51 has a limit of 10% noack)
PP Euro L has NOACK 11% and is MB 229.51 approved, except PP Euro L costs much less then Redline.
where have you seen a published number for PP Euro L noack? And isn't the above contradictory? (229.51 has a limit of 10% noack)
Originally Posted by harrydog
Is it legal in the US to state that your oil meets or exceeds manufacturer's approvals such as Amsoil and Redline do? I would think that is false advertising and would be easy enough to disprove if a mainstream oil company was interested in doing so.
The issue is a lack of context within the statement itself. They're not lying when they say it "exceeds X approval". Consumers incorrectly assume "exceeds" is synonymous with "better".
Is it legal in the US to state that your oil meets or exceeds manufacturer's approvals such as Amsoil and Redline do? I would think that is false advertising and would be easy enough to disprove if a mainstream oil company was interested in doing so.
The issue is a lack of context within the statement itself. They're not lying when they say it "exceeds X approval". Consumers incorrectly assume "exceeds" is synonymous with "better".
There is no such things as 'approvals' of lubricant oils being required by the governments, be it usa or the rest of the world, state or federal.
So is the irrelevance of the question of (usa) governments' requirements on 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' of lubricant oils.
Granted , there is such a thing as 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' of lubricant oils, which is voluntary in nature, by API in the context that API is not a regulating authourity or enforcement authority of usa governments.
However the 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' as required by API is NOT about 'quality' or 'standards compliance' per se, of API ratings (as like Sx,or CY) of the said lubricant oils.
It's solely about display of appropriate API logos on specifically 'labeling/packagings ' which is but, a minor part of a marketing department .
I simply can't understand the repeated 'obsessions' and 'arguments' as displayed in numerous threads on this board, including this thread, condecending upon US brands like Red Line / Amsoil etc for not seeking/possessing 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' from API, a non-regulating and non-enforcement authorities with zero legal 'power' on quality or the lack of it, of lubricant oils being sold or used in USA, or the rest of the world.
From the perspective of API, no API 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' is necessary or required ...........
unless and until the oil marketer(s) display appropriate 'API logos' on its labellings/packagings. Period.
Edit: The rest of the world, in particular Europe, had been and is today ..........
using oils 'uncertified' and/or 'unlicensed' by API for decades, if not a century, with no ill effects on automobiles.
Edit:spelling and amend facts.
So is the irrelevance of the question of (usa) governments' requirements on 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' of lubricant oils.
Granted , there is such a thing as 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' of lubricant oils, which is voluntary in nature, by API in the context that API is not a regulating authourity or enforcement authority of usa governments.
However the 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' as required by API is NOT about 'quality' or 'standards compliance' per se, of API ratings (as like Sx,or CY) of the said lubricant oils.
It's solely about display of appropriate API logos on specifically 'labeling/packagings ' which is but, a minor part of a marketing department .
I simply can't understand the repeated 'obsessions' and 'arguments' as displayed in numerous threads on this board, including this thread, condecending upon US brands like Red Line / Amsoil etc for not seeking/possessing 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' from API, a non-regulating and non-enforcement authorities with zero legal 'power' on quality or the lack of it, of lubricant oils being sold or used in USA, or the rest of the world.
From the perspective of API, no API 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' is necessary or required ...........
unless and until the oil marketer(s) display appropriate 'API logos' on its labellings/packagings. Period.
Edit: The rest of the world, in particular Europe, had been and is today ..........
using oils 'uncertified' and/or 'unlicensed' by API for decades, if not a century, with no ill effects on automobiles.
Edit:spelling and amend facts.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by zeng
There is no such things as 'approvals' of lubricant oils being required by the governments, be it usa or the rest of the world, state or federal.
So is the irrelevance of the question of (usa) governments' requirements on 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' of lubricant oils.
Granted , there is such a thing as 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' of lubricant oils, which is voluntary in nature, by API in the context that API is not a regulating authourity or enforcement authority of usa governments.
However the 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' as required by API is NOT about 'quality' or 'standards compliance' per se, of API ratings (as like Sx,or CY) of the said lubricant oils.
It's solely about display of appropriate API logos on specifically 'labeling/packagings ' which is but, a minor part of a marketing department .
I simply can't understand the repeated 'obsessions' and 'arguments' as displayed in numerous threads on this board, including this thread, condecending upon US brands like Red Line / Amsoil etc for not seeking/possessing 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' from API, a non-regulating and non-enforcement authorities with zero legal 'power' on quality or the lack of it, of lubricant oils being sold or used in USA, or the rest of the world.
From the perspective of API, no API 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' is necessary or required ...........
unless and until the oil marketer(s) display appropriate 'API logos' on its labellings/packagings. Period.
Edit: The rest of the world, in particular Europe, had been and is today ..........
using oils 'uncertified' and/or 'unlicensed' by API for decades, if not a century, with no ill effects on automobiles.
Edit:spelling and amend facts.
Nobody is talking about API.
There is no such things as 'approvals' of lubricant oils being required by the governments, be it usa or the rest of the world, state or federal.
So is the irrelevance of the question of (usa) governments' requirements on 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' of lubricant oils.
Granted , there is such a thing as 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' of lubricant oils, which is voluntary in nature, by API in the context that API is not a regulating authourity or enforcement authority of usa governments.
However the 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' as required by API is NOT about 'quality' or 'standards compliance' per se, of API ratings (as like Sx,or CY) of the said lubricant oils.
It's solely about display of appropriate API logos on specifically 'labeling/packagings ' which is but, a minor part of a marketing department .
I simply can't understand the repeated 'obsessions' and 'arguments' as displayed in numerous threads on this board, including this thread, condecending upon US brands like Red Line / Amsoil etc for not seeking/possessing 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' from API, a non-regulating and non-enforcement authorities with zero legal 'power' on quality or the lack of it, of lubricant oils being sold or used in USA, or the rest of the world.
From the perspective of API, no API 'certifications' and/or 'licensings' is necessary or required ...........
unless and until the oil marketer(s) display appropriate 'API logos' on its labellings/packagings. Period.
Edit: The rest of the world, in particular Europe, had been and is today ..........
using oils 'uncertified' and/or 'unlicensed' by API for decades, if not a century, with no ill effects on automobiles.
Edit:spelling and amend facts.
Nobody is talking about API.
API has a licensing program. It is a quality licensing, as they do periodic audits on the licensed oil to see if it still meets the specifications the oil company sent in with their licensing application.
API has cancelled licenses before. https://engineoil.api.org/Report/EolcsCanceledCompanyResults
ACEA on the otherhand, is more trustful of oil companies, as companies self-certify they meet ACEA specs. It just requires registration
http://acea.dossier-on-web.com/eor/engine-oil-registrations/menu/eor/front-page
API has cancelled licenses before. https://engineoil.api.org/Report/EolcsCanceledCompanyResults
ACEA on the otherhand, is more trustful of oil companies, as companies self-certify they meet ACEA specs. It just requires registration
http://acea.dossier-on-web.com/eor/engine-oil-registrations/menu/eor/front-page
Originally Posted by JAG
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by JAG
If I were the guy in charge of Red Line, I also would have made cheaper formulations for those that were to get formally approved. Cheaper ingredients can get the job done, so maximize profit. That doesn't mean the regular Red Line oils aren't good enough to pass the tests.
New formulation costs money. If you already have oil at disposal and claim to meet and exceed, then use that. Redline was all about 100% synthetic, now their falsely claim that BMW LL04 requires GroupIII base in amount higher of 50%. That is absolutely not true as there are numerous approved BMW LL04 oils with Group IV and V base.
On top of that NOACK of that oil is 11%, which means it will probably not be MB229.51 approved.
On 5W30 side they have also mediocre oil that got some approvals.
Company that is constantly involved in that shady marketing should be avoided by all means.
There are chemical limits on oils meeting specifications, and since typical Red Line oils are highly additivized, they violate most or all oil specs' chemical limits. New formulations do cost money but we don't know how much it would cost them to formulate/test/reformulate/re-test, etc., the oils. They can estimate that and can do the math on how many bottles of formally approved oils they would have to sell to make up the cost of that process. I don't think they would have had a need to do it because of the chemical limit matter, requiring new formulations, in my opinion.
I did not see Red Line say anything about at least 50% Group III for BMW LL04. What I see is:
"FULL SYNTHETIC -- OEM-required Group III/Group IV PAO Base Stocks".
I interpret that to mean that the oil specs that are met require synthetic base oils only, as defined in the United States (no Group I or II base stocks).
The 11% volatility: I see that and I also thought MB 229.5 requires 10% or less. I did check for formal MB 229.5 approval for Red Line 5W-40 and they got it. MB was satisfied that it met the spec.
I don't know what you saw that made you conclude that the 5W-30 version is mediocre. It's not a big deal to me...I'd never use those formally approved Red Line oils. I just posted because it seems that your opinions on this topic may stand on shaky footing and I thought it would be good if you reassessed the matter.
Speaking of chemical limits regarding additives. I found this little gem
"some lubricant companies were quick to launch aftermarket additive packages that contained zinc dithiophosphate (ZDDP), which only further elevated the problem. Research carried out by BIZOL reveals that excessive ZDDP levels might actually accelerate the timing chain wear. The issue has become so severe that OEMs were forced to initiate joint task-force development of a dedicated timing chain wear (TCW) test that is to be included in the forthcoming ILSAC GF-6 performance specifications for passenger car motor oils.
Courtesy of Prof. Dr. Boris Zhmud, Head of R&D, BIZOL Lubricants, www.bizol.us."
http://www.underhoodservice.com/timing-chain-wear-oil-quality/
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by JAG
If I were the guy in charge of Red Line, I also would have made cheaper formulations for those that were to get formally approved. Cheaper ingredients can get the job done, so maximize profit. That doesn't mean the regular Red Line oils aren't good enough to pass the tests.
New formulation costs money. If you already have oil at disposal and claim to meet and exceed, then use that. Redline was all about 100% synthetic, now their falsely claim that BMW LL04 requires GroupIII base in amount higher of 50%. That is absolutely not true as there are numerous approved BMW LL04 oils with Group IV and V base.
On top of that NOACK of that oil is 11%, which means it will probably not be MB229.51 approved.
On 5W30 side they have also mediocre oil that got some approvals.
Company that is constantly involved in that shady marketing should be avoided by all means.
There are chemical limits on oils meeting specifications, and since typical Red Line oils are highly additivized, they violate most or all oil specs' chemical limits. New formulations do cost money but we don't know how much it would cost them to formulate/test/reformulate/re-test, etc., the oils. They can estimate that and can do the math on how many bottles of formally approved oils they would have to sell to make up the cost of that process. I don't think they would have had a need to do it because of the chemical limit matter, requiring new formulations, in my opinion.
I did not see Red Line say anything about at least 50% Group III for BMW LL04. What I see is:
"FULL SYNTHETIC -- OEM-required Group III/Group IV PAO Base Stocks".
I interpret that to mean that the oil specs that are met require synthetic base oils only, as defined in the United States (no Group I or II base stocks).
The 11% volatility: I see that and I also thought MB 229.5 requires 10% or less. I did check for formal MB 229.5 approval for Red Line 5W-40 and they got it. MB was satisfied that it met the spec.
I don't know what you saw that made you conclude that the 5W-30 version is mediocre. It's not a big deal to me...I'd never use those formally approved Red Line oils. I just posted because it seems that your opinions on this topic may stand on shaky footing and I thought it would be good if you reassessed the matter.
Speaking of chemical limits regarding additives. I found this little gem
"some lubricant companies were quick to launch aftermarket additive packages that contained zinc dithiophosphate (ZDDP), which only further elevated the problem. Research carried out by BIZOL reveals that excessive ZDDP levels might actually accelerate the timing chain wear. The issue has become so severe that OEMs were forced to initiate joint task-force development of a dedicated timing chain wear (TCW) test that is to be included in the forthcoming ILSAC GF-6 performance specifications for passenger car motor oils.
Courtesy of Prof. Dr. Boris Zhmud, Head of R&D, BIZOL Lubricants, www.bizol.us."
http://www.underhoodservice.com/timing-chain-wear-oil-quality/
Last edited:
- Status
