Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Ive not been impresed by redline lubes for many years now. and while Ive never used redline lube oils, the UOA results we have seen havent been that stellar.
That's a little harsh for someone that has never used their motor oil.
I for one have been very impressed RL UOAs.
Their oils have proven to be shear proof with more than acceptable wear numbers.
More than acceptable is relative. Sure, we can argue meaning or validity of x ppm vs y ppm of some wear metal, and whether it means anything at all... But the reality is that we have seen MANY times that RL produces high wear metal numbers compared to other lubes. This isnt a question of what UOA tells you - in the context of this specific thread, it appears that RL may not meet certain specs well, and if there is some compromise in the design of the lube, protection may be compromised despite its grp V base, which per the rest of my orginal post, appears to be a differentiator to those who (foolishly) demand specific basestocks for some semblance of "value proposition" that isnt really there.
RI_RS4 was not impressed with RL results in the RS4 engine - driving to the need for a new lube. Sure that is turbo and DI, but for more simplistic engines, Im not sure we have absolute certainty that an extra ton of moly or other AW/EP/FM adds do much at all... and perhaps hinder. And how about TBN?
I cant say that shear stability has been a challenge in any oils Ive ever run, and I have quite a few >10k mile OCIs out there in the UOA section.
Maybe youre specifically talking about racing applications and racing oils... But if so, you arent clear, and most on here couldn't care less about racing applications as compared to longgevity under their regular driving use - even if they drive very hard.
