427Z06 you disappoint. I thought you were one person who would be able to show me how to compare ASTM D-4741 to D-4683.
Redline vs Motul 300V
- Thread starter bluemax1
- Start date
- Status
I know of two ASTM D-4683 HTHS measurements made of off-the-self Red Line samples by someone of impeccable reputation. One showed it to be within 95.3% of stated D-4741 value, and the other 91.6% of stated D-4741 value. Yes, sample to sample variability, but you will see that with any brand of oil.
He didn't specify, but you're sure? What a load of manure!
So a rule of thumb (to give the benefit of doubt to Redline) would be to multiply by .95?
Thats not to bad as I was expecting it to be a 10-15% reduction.
Thats not to bad as I was expecting it to be a 10-15% reduction.
Do you think he is going to just hand over their UOA reports for me or reveal some secret? Give me a break.
Redline touts itself on Hp gains but the high HT/HS may offset that in some applications. I was reading a Hot Rod magazing article a few months ago where they lost Hp when switching from MC 5w-20 to RL 5w-20 in a Mustang. Only thing I can think of that would cause that is the higher HT/HS.
Redline touts itself on Hp gains but the high HT/HS may offset that in some applications. I was reading a Hot Rod magazing article a few months ago where they lost Hp when switching from MC 5w-20 to RL 5w-20 in a Mustang. Only thing I can think of that would cause that is the higher HT/HS.
That's a reasonable approach when comparing to other oils. Not all of them are dead on with their specs either.
One would probably also want to consider shear stability too. Since if it permanently shears once in the engine, doesn't matter what the HTHS specs say it is when new and in the bottle.
Buster, you dont think the higher static viscosity 9.1 vs 8.8 could have anything to do with it? I have always thought the primary losses were pumping losses.
If the results of the test 427Z06 reported are accurate then according to the HT/HS theory M1 5W-30 (3.09) should show more power than RL 5W-20 (3.3 x 0.95 = 3.15).
If the results of the test 427Z06 reported are accurate then according to the HT/HS theory M1 5W-30 (3.09) should show more power than RL 5W-20 (3.3 x 0.95 = 3.15).
buster, this is dumb, even for you. No need to reveal secrets to brag about reduced wear. And what happens when people start doing their own comparative UOAs? Is their secret then lost?
You missed my point. No matter what JG would say, (same goes for XOM) you wouldn't believe it anyway. You chose to believe what you want to believe. I have no idea what wear comparisons were between those oils tested, only they do and I know they wouldn't come out and say that. My statements were that engine wear is/was a key concern which is why they developed those oils. So obviously RL wasn't good enough either. It would be nice to see some wear charts of that test.
Well, I just got off the phone with Motul tech. After describing my engine modifications, bearing oil clearance gap, max rpm and HP level they recommended either Motul 300V 10w40 or 5w40.
The tech guy kept putting me on hold to consult with his boss (unnamed) who was involved with the development of 300V and its race testing.
His boss's 1st recommendation was to go with the 10w40, but I could also run the 5w40 if I chose. 5w40 would result in a slight increase in HP, but he said sometimes folks aren't comfortable running an oil that thin on the track in a high HP application.
Odd thing is that the 5w40 has a higher HT/HS than the 10w40 and yes, it seems they're different forumaltions and it's not recommended to mix. The 5w40 HT/HS is 4.51 and the 10w40 HT/HS is 4.19. I forgot to ask if those were ASTM D-4683 or 4741.
Seeing how Motul 300V has been/is being used by a number of race teams in DTM, JGTC and even WRC, I think I'll give it a try in April when I head to Road America. Still not sure if I'll try the 10w40 or 5w40 yet. They said if the car is street driven, the 5w40 is a very good option for the street (as the VOA on BITOG showed). The 5w40 has a TBN of 11.5 vs the 10w40 TBN of 9.5
Max
The tech guy kept putting me on hold to consult with his boss (unnamed) who was involved with the development of 300V and its race testing.
His boss's 1st recommendation was to go with the 10w40, but I could also run the 5w40 if I chose. 5w40 would result in a slight increase in HP, but he said sometimes folks aren't comfortable running an oil that thin on the track in a high HP application.
Odd thing is that the 5w40 has a higher HT/HS than the 10w40 and yes, it seems they're different forumaltions and it's not recommended to mix. The 5w40 HT/HS is 4.51 and the 10w40 HT/HS is 4.19. I forgot to ask if those were ASTM D-4683 or 4741.
Seeing how Motul 300V has been/is being used by a number of race teams in DTM, JGTC and even WRC, I think I'll give it a try in April when I head to Road America. Still not sure if I'll try the 10w40 or 5w40 yet. They said if the car is street driven, the 5w40 is a very good option for the street (as the VOA on BITOG showed). The 5w40 has a TBN of 11.5 vs the 10w40 TBN of 9.5
Max
Motul makes more than one 5W-40.
Make sure you are refering to the same oil.
I believe Vw 505.01 is the oil with the 11.5 TBN.
The Xcess 8100 5W-40 is indeed slightly thinner in fully formulated form than the 6100 10W-40.
It also possible the 10W-40 is built with higher viscosity basestock and has fewer VII to shear down.
He also may just have been refering to the common misconception that 5W oil has to be "thinnner" than 10W.
A 5W is likely a tough sell to a racer who has been used to Straight 50 or 20W-50.
Make sure you are refering to the same oil.
I believe Vw 505.01 is the oil with the 11.5 TBN.
The Xcess 8100 5W-40 is indeed slightly thinner in fully formulated form than the 6100 10W-40.
It also possible the 10W-40 is built with higher viscosity basestock and has fewer VII to shear down.
He also may just have been refering to the common misconception that 5W oil has to be "thinnner" than 10W.
A 5W is likely a tough sell to a racer who has been used to Straight 50 or 20W-50.
Got you. The 10W-40 is slightly higher static viscosity than the 5W-40. Not enough that I think it would make much difference. I wont attempt to dissect Motul's comments. Way to much info I dont know.
BTW, one thing I forgot to mention was asking them about using the 300V 15w50.
The reason I was considering trying that was because at Road America, the course is longer seeing potentially higher sustained rpms and maybe higher oil temps so I wasn't sure if the extra viscosity might be a good idea.
The reason I hand't tried 15w50 yet is because my bearing oil clearances are on the tighter side being 0.0015" as opposed to the looser 0.002" that some folks run. The original bearings spec'ed out at 0.002" but came back with the tighter clearances after the coating was applied. Short of pulling the engine apart to see if the coating has been burnished in from running the engine potentially opening up the oil clearances back closer to the original 0.002", I simply consider them to be at 0.0015". This leads to a potential problem arising from the logarithmic increase in bearing/oil temperature as the oil gap decreases. It's potentially possible for the temps right at that junction to double from the decrease from 0.002 to 0.0015, but i wasn't sure if those clearances were too tight to run the thicker oil.
Well, anyway the Motul tech's boss told me that 10w40 would probably be the best bet for my application. I could also choose to run either their 5w40 for the track (which might be the best option on the street) or the 15w50, but his 1st pick would be their 10w40.
Oh, and yes, this is all in reference to Motul's 300V Motorsport/racing oils.
Max
The reason I was considering trying that was because at Road America, the course is longer seeing potentially higher sustained rpms and maybe higher oil temps so I wasn't sure if the extra viscosity might be a good idea.
The reason I hand't tried 15w50 yet is because my bearing oil clearances are on the tighter side being 0.0015" as opposed to the looser 0.002" that some folks run. The original bearings spec'ed out at 0.002" but came back with the tighter clearances after the coating was applied. Short of pulling the engine apart to see if the coating has been burnished in from running the engine potentially opening up the oil clearances back closer to the original 0.002", I simply consider them to be at 0.0015". This leads to a potential problem arising from the logarithmic increase in bearing/oil temperature as the oil gap decreases. It's potentially possible for the temps right at that junction to double from the decrease from 0.002 to 0.0015, but i wasn't sure if those clearances were too tight to run the thicker oil.
Well, anyway the Motul tech's boss told me that 10w40 would probably be the best bet for my application. I could also choose to run either their 5w40 for the track (which might be the best option on the street) or the 15w50, but his 1st pick would be their 10w40.
Oh, and yes, this is all in reference to Motul's 300V Motorsport/racing oils.
Max
Cut the the crapola buster and stop telling me what I believe and what I don't.
I expect claims, especially from someone like you who specializes in kindergarten levels of analysis, to be backed up with meaningful factual data. You go from a chart that shows a horsepower or two advantage in a particular race engine design with unspecified oils, except for brand, and extrapolate to JG's testing of RL wasn't all that great. Talk about the spreading barnyard dung!
Let's keep it civil and informational folks. So far, I haven't seen anything (except conjecture) that says Redline isn't good.
Seems like very few folks have any experience with Motul 300V here. I'll see if anyone in the racing section has tried it.
BTW, who is this JG and what testing is it that's being discussed?
Max
Seems like very few folks have any experience with Motul 300V here. I'll see if anyone in the racing section has tried it.
BTW, who is this JG and what testing is it that's being discussed?
Max
I think it's pretty clear who brings critical analysis to the board, and who just regurgitates a bunch of here-say combined with 4-year old logic.
This is like the third thread you've corrupted this week because you can't come up with anything constructive to say. Since I've been on this board, you change your brand allegiance like some women change their hair styles...and then act like it's that time of the month again when someone points out your nonsense.
If you don't have anything meaningful to add, kept quiet and learn something.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked