Ravenol 5w30 REP vs VMS vs VMP

We have somewhat veered away from my point, labeling. Whether dog whiz, peanut butter and a strawberry jam is the best isn't at issue. If that dog whiz, peanut butter ,strawberry jam called itself a synthetic because the peanut butter was "synthesized" from crunchy to smooth is the topic at hand.
Still does not mean better product.
 
I do believe that IV and V base oils are superior to III in most aspects

That might be true, but since most people don't refill the crankcase with "aspects", but finished motor oil...you know the rest. Approvals, certifications and licenses. Within a budget.
 
PAO has superior cold temperature performance and, at the limits, better oxidation resistance than Group III. For the former, this is regardless of how you dose it with PPD's. The lack of wax in PAO and thus the inability to form wax crystals make it superior in that respect. It also has lower volatility (generally). While it is certainly possible (we see it all the time) to blend oils that meet the requirements for a given suite of performance targets using Group III, an oil blended to meet those same targets with a predominantly PAO base will typically have lower volatility and better cold temperature performance. Whether those are actual benefits in practice in a given usage profile is where the debate begins.

PAO is expensive, that's why alternatives were sought. Mobil uses it in varying quantities in their best oils, M1 EP and AP in the 0w-xx flavours come to mind, my assumption is that this due to how much easier it is to meet the intended performance characteristics for those grades with it.

Personally, I appreciate Ravenol being upfront about their base oil selection and the fact they advertise using PAO as the predominant base in most of their products. Both the cold temperature figures (CCS/MRV) and volatility (Noack) reflect that and are typically very close to, if not the best in the class for a given grade. While it may not mean any appreciable benefit in the real world, if those traits are of value to you, then there is merit in looking at oils like Ravenol.
 
Whether those are actual benefits in practice in a given usage profile is where the debate begins.

I guess that's what I meant. A discrete comparison of "ingredients" is not a the final word on the product.

Personally, I appreciate Ravenol being upfront about their base oil selection and the fact they advertise using PAO as the predominant base in most of their products.

And so do I. Taking it to "the limit" and being honest are plusses when doing business. (y)
 
I tend to disagree. I do believe that IV and V base oils are superior to III in most aspects except for cost and deceptive advertising. In that case III is clearly the winner.
I am not sure what your post is all about. What are aspects? You do know that all oils are blended, that there is no 100% Group IV or V oils. Again, Mobil1 ESP Formula was majority Group III oil and had better "aspects" than any Ravenol or Redline oil.
Final product is the ONLY thing that matters.
 
PAO has superior cold temperature performance and, at the limits, better oxidation resistance than Group III. For the former, this is regardless of how you dose it with PPD's. The lack of wax in PAO and thus the inability to form wax crystals make it superior in that respect. It also has lower volatility (generally). While it is certainly possible (we see it all the time) to blend oils that meet the requirements for a given suite of performance targets using Group III, an oil blended to meet those same targets with a predominantly PAO base will typically have lower volatility and better cold temperature performance. Whether those are actual benefits in practice in a given usage profile is where the debate begins.

PAO is expensive, that's why alternatives were sought. Mobil uses it in varying quantities in their best oils, M1 EP and AP in the 0w-xx flavours come to mind, my assumption is that this due to how much easier it is to meet the intended performance characteristics for those grades with it.

Personally, I appreciate Ravenol being upfront about their base oil selection and the fact they advertise using PAO as the predominant base in most of their products. Both the cold temperature figures (CCS/MRV) and volatility (Noack) reflect that and are typically very close to, if not the best in the class for a given grade. While it may not mean any appreciable benefit in the real world, if those traits are of value to you, then there is merit in looking at oils like Ravenol.
I would appreciate if they update their 0W40 selection with newer LL01 approval. They are advertising same product for years as LL01 in the USA, while in Germany they advertise "recommended for" LL01.
Also, their advertisement says PAO based, yet MSDS that I have been able to find indicates only 6-11% of PAO.
Just one example.
 
I bought a bunch of the M1 ESP 5W30 at Napa recently. Great price and what I needed for factory approvals 504/507. I also buy Grp III blended oils for the Chrysler product. On the turbo direct injected cars I am trending to group IV or V base because of anecdotal evidence they help inhibit the fouling of the back of the valve with deposits and on my TDI's I like the GRP IV/V for its cold weather attributes and the ring land cleaning theory. I have nothing against any oil that anyone wishes to use. I do have an issue of descriptions in mass marketing. I can afford any oil I want to buy. It may make zero difference in the long term that I spent money that may well be wasted. Who cares?
 
Sure there is. And it’s one of the best possible demonstrations of the fact that blindly pursuing ingredients is silly.

MPT engine oils, discussed here: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/mpt-pao-ester-synthetics.328155/

All PAO/ester, as well as massive add packs.

...and zero major race teams or big-time engine builders use it. Zero.

I don’t know how much clearer it could possibly be.

Of course Redline is the flip side of that coin.

Personally, if two oils have the same list of approvals and are close to the same price but one has lower CCS/MRV and Noack because it has more PAO in the base oil blend I'm liable to go with that product, since it was more expensive to blend.
 
I would appreciate if they update their 0W40 selection with newer LL01 approval. They are advertising same product for years as LL01 in the USA, while in Germany they advertise "recommended for" LL01.
Also, their advertisement says PAO based, yet MSDS that I have been able to find indicates only 6-11% of PAO.
Just one example.

Yeah, I've seen that MSDS, but that seems to run contrary to a -60C pour point and the MRV and Noack for the product, both of which are class-leading. I'll e-mail them and see if we can get an updated MSDS from them.
 
Yeah, I've seen that MSDS, but that seems to run contrary to a -60C pour point and the MRV and Noack for the product, both of which are class-leading. I'll e-mail them and see if we can get an updated MSDS from them.
YEs, I saw pour point. Not sure how different -60 is to -57 of Castrol 0W40. It could be that their bland is having some Esters and higher quality Group III, but I am not sure it is on par with Castrol 0W40 or 0W30, and their approval game is bit sketchy.
The question is: is it really worth price difference compared to Castrol 0W40? I highly doubt they have more PAO, and that game around LL01 does not inspire confidence.
 
YEs, I saw pour point. Not sure how different -60 is to -57 of Castrol 0W40. It could be that their bland is having some Esters and higher quality Group III, but I am not sure it is on par with Castrol 0W40 or 0W30, and their approval game is bit sketchy.
The question is: is it really worth price difference compared to Castrol 0W40? I highly doubt they have more PAO, and that game around LL01 does not inspire confidence.

Well I think many of the 0w-40's have lost, or have failed to pursue, LL-01 at this point. Mobil 1, Castrol and of course Pennzoil all come to mind.

Castrol 0w-40 of course also has a big slug of PAO in it, as we've discussed in the past. Current US PDS is from 2012 and just lists a "max" value for Pour Point at -60C, MSDS, which is more recent from 2018 shows 25-50% PAO and a pour point of -57C. We unfortunately have no idea as to Noack or MRV. So there's a lot of confusion there too.

The current "Americas" PDS also makes no mention of LL-01 on it and is also from 2018:
Screen Shot 2020-07-21 at 2.41.47 PM.png


Interestingly, while the Ravenol Europe site is down, the Ravenol Americas site still shows the formal LL-01 approval:

And the CCS visc is notably lower than the Castrol 0w-40, hinting at more PAO.
 
Well I think many of the 0w-40's have lost, or have failed to pursue, LL-01 at this point. Mobil 1, Castrol and of course Pennzoil all come to mind.

Castrol 0w-40 of course also has a big slug of PAO in it, as we've discussed in the past. Current US PDS is from 2012 and just lists a "max" value for Pour Point at -60C, MSDS, which is more recent from 2018 shows 25-50% PAO and a pour point of -57C. We unfortunately have no idea as to Noack or MRV. So there's a lot of confusion there too.

The current "Americas" PDS also makes no mention of LL-01 on it and is also from 2018:
View attachment 25542

Interestingly, while the Ravenol Europe site is down, the Ravenol Americas site still shows the formal LL-01 approval:

And the CCS visc is notably lower than the Castrol 0w-40, hinting at more PAO.
German Ravenol web site is having LL01 as recommended, not approved.
 
Of course Redline is the flip side of that coin.
MPT claims to use zero Group I/II/II or viscosity modifier whatsoever in their Thirty-K and Racing oils. Red Line doesn't make that kind of claim for any of their product lines, and AFAICT their SDSs give no indication that that's what they're doing.
 
Last edited:
German Ravenol web site is having LL01 as recommended, not approved.

So might be similar to the Mobil situation where the PDS for the 0w-40 wasn't updated to reflect the Global formulation for like a year. I'd expect the German site here to be more current, so that gives us yet another 0w-40 that is no longer formally approved for LL-01 on top of the three I already listed.
 
Back
Top