Guy's I mean no harm, trust me. I just raise these questions/issues to push the debate further and try and extract some of Terry's knowledge.
[ May 08, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
Redline 5W30, 5300 miles, BMW X5 4.4 V8
- Thread starter chefwong
- Start date
- Status
Guy's I mean no harm, trust me. I just raise these questions/issues to push the debate further and try and extract some of Terry's knowledge.
[ May 08, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
I saw this at the 3MP site concerning Flash Point . I suppose they got this info from Blackstone and if so it seems it can vary greatly
Flashpoint
± 32°F
ASTM D92-98a
Also , to have been poured into such a dirty container insoluables was reasonably low I'd say .
Speaking of containers here's a completely different formulated oil kept in a container " engine " for 13 months for a comparison of sorts .
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001490
In this previous thread there is an interesting email reply to a member from Lubrizol about the new Organo Moly Complexes and corrosion / basestocks and potential problems in the field ect.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000921
I just found and pulled this from a previous thread :
"John, I have found some info on testing with Redline. First three oils were sampled and analyzed. All oils were Red Line, 10w30, 10w40,and 20w50. The tests run were the Falex pin and Vee Wear Test and the Thin Film Oxidation Update Test (TFOUT). These tests are good comparative tools to evaluate different motor oils. The infrared Analysis confirms that the Redline oils are all ester-based products. The base numbers are all above nine and the viscosity's are normal for the viscosity ranges claimed for each product. Elemental Analysis on the three oil samples showed the same chemistry in each of the samples. This is a predominately calcium based detergent package with a heavy dose of Moly. Two things arise from these elements. First, a high calcium along with the high levels of magnesium, phosphorus and zinc suggests that these oils are a rather high ash type engine oil, which may be prone to deposit formation. The presence of Moly indicates the presence of a moly disulfide type compound used for friction modification and wear prevention. Moly compounds have had difficulty with thermal stability and becoming corrosive above 750 deg F. Moly has a history of problems in engine oils that may be also present in these oils based on the presence of moly. In the past, I think you'll agree that engine temperatures in the ring belt area may exceed the thermal stability limits for moly compounds.
In the Falex Pin and Vee Wear Test, both the 10w30 and 20w50 oils showed five teeth of wear. The 10w40 product showed four teeth of wear LE 8800 15w40 oil showed similar wear on the same test. This shows that there is very little difference between the LE and the Redline engine oils for wear purposes.
The TFOUT test however, the Redline product failed miserably, This failure is related to the type of base stock used in these products. As we stated earlier, this is a polyolester product, which has difficulty handling water and moisture , In the TFOUT tests, these products did not show a pressure drop on the Rotary Bomb used to conduct the test. After sixteen hours, the bomb was disassembled and there wes a very heavily oxidized residue remaining in the test jar.
Experience with this test tells us that products formulated with esters have a chemical reaction occurring during the test which consumes oxygen as expected, but the chemical reaction also produces water vapor and other gases at approximately the same rate as the oxpgen is consumed. The result is a nil pressure drop. However, the water vapor and hear in the test severely degrade and oxidize the ester causing a total failure of the oil. This is a detrimental feature of these oils in that in an engine under short run conditions where the engine may not heat up completely. there is a great deal of moisture produced. This moisture will effect the ester base and cause rapid significant oxidation of the oil.
Overall, we feel that the Redline products, while exhibiting good wear protection in the Falex Test, are not well balanced products and would have difficulties performing in long drain service due to their susceptibility to oxidation and degradation. The high calcium chemistry does not give the total base number longevity that is seen in the predominantly magnesium chemistry of the LE 8800 and the Moly may also be a source of potential corrosion and thermal instability in these Redline engine oils.
Sorry the posting was so long but I'm writing it off the Lab analysis results.
Sincerely, Kevin Dinwiddie "
Remember now I did not write any of this
however I find the second to last paragraph an interesting post considering the source 
along with Lubrizols response.
[ May 09, 2004, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Motorbike ]
Flashpoint
± 32°F
ASTM D92-98a
Also , to have been poured into such a dirty container insoluables was reasonably low I'd say .
Speaking of containers here's a completely different formulated oil kept in a container " engine " for 13 months for a comparison of sorts .
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001490
In this previous thread there is an interesting email reply to a member from Lubrizol about the new Organo Moly Complexes and corrosion / basestocks and potential problems in the field ect.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000921
I just found and pulled this from a previous thread :
"John, I have found some info on testing with Redline. First three oils were sampled and analyzed. All oils were Red Line, 10w30, 10w40,and 20w50. The tests run were the Falex pin and Vee Wear Test and the Thin Film Oxidation Update Test (TFOUT). These tests are good comparative tools to evaluate different motor oils. The infrared Analysis confirms that the Redline oils are all ester-based products. The base numbers are all above nine and the viscosity's are normal for the viscosity ranges claimed for each product. Elemental Analysis on the three oil samples showed the same chemistry in each of the samples. This is a predominately calcium based detergent package with a heavy dose of Moly. Two things arise from these elements. First, a high calcium along with the high levels of magnesium, phosphorus and zinc suggests that these oils are a rather high ash type engine oil, which may be prone to deposit formation. The presence of Moly indicates the presence of a moly disulfide type compound used for friction modification and wear prevention. Moly compounds have had difficulty with thermal stability and becoming corrosive above 750 deg F. Moly has a history of problems in engine oils that may be also present in these oils based on the presence of moly. In the past, I think you'll agree that engine temperatures in the ring belt area may exceed the thermal stability limits for moly compounds.
In the Falex Pin and Vee Wear Test, both the 10w30 and 20w50 oils showed five teeth of wear. The 10w40 product showed four teeth of wear LE 8800 15w40 oil showed similar wear on the same test. This shows that there is very little difference between the LE and the Redline engine oils for wear purposes.
The TFOUT test however, the Redline product failed miserably, This failure is related to the type of base stock used in these products. As we stated earlier, this is a polyolester product, which has difficulty handling water and moisture , In the TFOUT tests, these products did not show a pressure drop on the Rotary Bomb used to conduct the test. After sixteen hours, the bomb was disassembled and there wes a very heavily oxidized residue remaining in the test jar.
Experience with this test tells us that products formulated with esters have a chemical reaction occurring during the test which consumes oxygen as expected, but the chemical reaction also produces water vapor and other gases at approximately the same rate as the oxpgen is consumed. The result is a nil pressure drop. However, the water vapor and hear in the test severely degrade and oxidize the ester causing a total failure of the oil. This is a detrimental feature of these oils in that in an engine under short run conditions where the engine may not heat up completely. there is a great deal of moisture produced. This moisture will effect the ester base and cause rapid significant oxidation of the oil.
Overall, we feel that the Redline products, while exhibiting good wear protection in the Falex Test, are not well balanced products and would have difficulties performing in long drain service due to their susceptibility to oxidation and degradation. The high calcium chemistry does not give the total base number longevity that is seen in the predominantly magnesium chemistry of the LE 8800 and the Moly may also be a source of potential corrosion and thermal instability in these Redline engine oils.
Sorry the posting was so long but I'm writing it off the Lab analysis results.
Sincerely, Kevin Dinwiddie "
Remember now I did not write any of this
along with Lubrizols response.[ May 09, 2004, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Motorbike ]
Nice truck, my friend just bought the X5 4.8is, and I will be lucky enough to maintain it. I wonder if it has the same 8.5 quart capacity of the 4.4? What does BMW reccomend for vis for this motor with the 15k intervals?
I'm gonna give you guys some gold here, take note.
I at one time was of the opinion that the article from LE espoused about RL motor oils.
Curtis are you pulling teeth here or "noodling" for data ?
On lubrizols issues with moly/RL you must remember that the chemist for Redline Roy Howell left Lubrizol for RL so there may be some sour grapes going on with their corporate take on his theories.
Note too that if lubrizol is correct then I think Roy would be intimately knowledgeable about the issues.
Since he still builds a fine oil for RL I doubt that Lubrizol is right on this one.
On deeper examination I found in independent ( blinded) testing Dec 2000 ,that the soluble moly that is used is VERY oxdiatively and thermally stable in the oils.Just like it is in Schaeffers products.
During the same tests( all 10w-30 unless noted) we found that On the D 4742 TFOUT:
Redline exceeded > 300 minutes.
Amsoil ATM was 160 min
Amsoil XL 7500 288 min
Amsoil AME 15w-40 182 min
M1 all formulas exceeded 300 min no supersyn tested.
Schaeffers 7000 blend >300min I love this oil for the money.
Rotella T 15w-40 182 min
Schaeffers moly bond 15w-40 223 min
I'm giving BITOG thousands of $ worth of blinded/independent testing here to show that the total formulation is the key on these oils.
All which do well in many applications.
All in all a good quality UOA with proper interpretation and consult with the customer will tell more than these bench tests splitting hairs on one or two aspects of a lubricant. Now if you have access to both UOA's and Bench testing then you have something to compare to.
On Oxidation resistance...... add a little Lube Control to the test oil and blow the TFOUT/RBOT away. No matter the quality of the oil....
Note too that some bases of oils used in Redline, NEO and some Amsoil formulations will artificially show poor TFOUT/RBOT test results alone as a base oil, when in actual practice and properly formulated finished chemistry they are much more resistant over the long haul than some of the petroleum based oils on the bench.
As far as being stable in the presence of water or attracting water and the resultant acidic attack ....I haven't seen that issue with Redline at all.
I respect Kevin Dinwiddie and LE and have met personally in Ft.Worth with their chemists and think the oil is a fine product and enjoy analyzing it for many of my customers.
Terry
Dyson Analysis
I at one time was of the opinion that the article from LE espoused about RL motor oils.
Curtis are you pulling teeth here or "noodling" for data ?
On lubrizols issues with moly/RL you must remember that the chemist for Redline Roy Howell left Lubrizol for RL so there may be some sour grapes going on with their corporate take on his theories.
Note too that if lubrizol is correct then I think Roy would be intimately knowledgeable about the issues.
Since he still builds a fine oil for RL I doubt that Lubrizol is right on this one.
On deeper examination I found in independent ( blinded) testing Dec 2000 ,that the soluble moly that is used is VERY oxdiatively and thermally stable in the oils.Just like it is in Schaeffers products.
During the same tests( all 10w-30 unless noted) we found that On the D 4742 TFOUT:
Redline exceeded > 300 minutes.
Amsoil ATM was 160 min
Amsoil XL 7500 288 min
Amsoil AME 15w-40 182 min
M1 all formulas exceeded 300 min no supersyn tested.
Schaeffers 7000 blend >300min I love this oil for the money.
Rotella T 15w-40 182 min
Schaeffers moly bond 15w-40 223 min
I'm giving BITOG thousands of $ worth of blinded/independent testing here to show that the total formulation is the key on these oils.
All which do well in many applications.
All in all a good quality UOA with proper interpretation and consult with the customer will tell more than these bench tests splitting hairs on one or two aspects of a lubricant. Now if you have access to both UOA's and Bench testing then you have something to compare to.
On Oxidation resistance...... add a little Lube Control to the test oil and blow the TFOUT/RBOT away. No matter the quality of the oil....
Note too that some bases of oils used in Redline, NEO and some Amsoil formulations will artificially show poor TFOUT/RBOT test results alone as a base oil, when in actual practice and properly formulated finished chemistry they are much more resistant over the long haul than some of the petroleum based oils on the bench.
As far as being stable in the presence of water or attracting water and the resultant acidic attack ....I haven't seen that issue with Redline at all.
I respect Kevin Dinwiddie and LE and have met personally in Ft.Worth with their chemists and think the oil is a fine product and enjoy analyzing it for many of my customers.
Terry
Dyson Analysis
buster, the "solvency" issue is why I recommended you use LC in your M1 15W50 experimant. I think that solvency is very important and you just do not get it with OTC PAO lubes! Even if you decide to try SUV/Delvac-1 LC will be a valuable companion. I hasve not proven it to my self yet as it will take years to do so. I belive that the continued increse in insolvency over the standard off the shelf products will become apparent years down the road. I think that it should be measureable in your trending easily within three oil changes to rule out out liers.
It has always been my opinion that what the oil leaves behind is more improtant then the wear it reduces. Thanks to Terry and Mola I at lest understand why my beliefs are accurate. As a tech. I noticed that most of the engiens that I had to rebuild or repair were usualy sludged and varnished up. I seldom had a pristine engine come in needing to be worked on unless it was defective part that failed.
It has always been my opinion that what the oil leaves behind is more improtant then the wear it reduces. Thanks to Terry and Mola I at lest understand why my beliefs are accurate. As a tech. I noticed that most of the engiens that I had to rebuild or repair were usualy sludged and varnished up. I seldom had a pristine engine come in needing to be worked on unless it was defective part that failed.
seems like too much of a coincidence that RL users have many more poorly operating engines or dirty or whatever excuse causing the poor numbers over users of other oils.. Statistically that does not seem feasible.
It just seems that every time there is a poor RL UOA there is an operational issue to go along with it. Like the Amsoil warranty (where Amsoil can never fail ), RL can never fail, it is always someone else's fault! Just an opinion based on obvservation only.
It just seems that every time there is a poor RL UOA there is an operational issue to go along with it. Like the Amsoil warranty (where Amsoil can never fail ), RL can never fail, it is always someone else's fault! Just an opinion based on obvservation only.
I am presently running Redline 5W30 in my wife's 00 Mazda. This is a short trip, 12 mile round trip at the most to town and church. Fortunately for the first time, it has seen a 2K trip on this oil also. I am running it a full year, then I will do a UOA on it. I presently have 3400 miles on the oil and no bypass filter. I plan on running Red Line for 3 UOA's, then RP 5W30 for 3 UOA's.
Terry have you seen the updated ASTM D4742 test? Amsoil TFOUT test
Amsoil >500 minutes
Those previous Amsoil numbers look to low.
Spector touched on something that initiated my concern for RL and that is why such a high % show poor numbers?
Also, if Mobil 1 shows good wear in a UOA, but it's not showing the whole picture as RL would, can the same be said for Amsoil/GC or any other oil? And what does that now tell us about all other good UOAs we see with other oils?
[ May 10, 2004, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
Amsoil >500 minutes
Those previous Amsoil numbers look to low.
Spector touched on something that initiated my concern for RL and that is why such a high % show poor numbers?
Also, if Mobil 1 shows good wear in a UOA, but it's not showing the whole picture as RL would, can the same be said for Amsoil/GC or any other oil? And what does that now tell us about all other good UOAs we see with other oils?
Could be the reason why Roy isn't with Lubrizol right now. Could one man be right?
[ May 10, 2004, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
Same ASTM test done by Amsoil. Possibly reformulated since the tests results we have or their tests worked out better ???
The test values shared above are independent and blinded for brand.
I stand by my comments before on your other comments/statements/questions.
Knowing Lubrizol I doubt Roy Howell was run out for being weak in the Chemistry realm....
Hey I am not defending Redline, just telling you what I know and backing it up with non company owned data.
Redline doesn't need Dyson Analysis or my testing as I offered to perform field validation tests for the Amsoil/Redline 4 ball paper that came out a few years ago and their president said "why, we aready know what the oil can do"?
The test values shared above are independent and blinded for brand.
I stand by my comments before on your other comments/statements/questions.
Knowing Lubrizol I doubt Roy Howell was run out for being weak in the Chemistry realm....
Hey I am not defending Redline, just telling you what I know and backing it up with non company owned data.
Redline doesn't need Dyson Analysis or my testing as I offered to perform field validation tests for the Amsoil/Redline 4 ball paper that came out a few years ago and their president said "why, we aready know what the oil can do"?
Old data. Old numbers. In real life tests Redline really isn't worth the money. It simply isn't. I really am waiting for the data.
Of course if Amsoil publishes data, it's all bull....so I guess I'm just another sticky relay.
I do agree that no conclusions can be gathered from this (for sure) or any single UOA. It's just that it's always SOMETHING defending Redline. Bad sampling, cleaning up, car running too rich, coolant leak....you name it's being defended. I think Redline is a great oil, don't get me wrong, it's just someday it'll stand on it's own.
I am not a Redline hater, nor am I smitten with it.
Of course if Amsoil publishes data, it's all bull....so I guess I'm just another sticky relay.
I do agree that no conclusions can be gathered from this (for sure) or any single UOA. It's just that it's always SOMETHING defending Redline. Bad sampling, cleaning up, car running too rich, coolant leak....you name it's being defended. I think Redline is a great oil, don't get me wrong, it's just someday it'll stand on it's own.
I am not a Redline hater, nor am I smitten with it.
- Status
Similar threads
