Trying Renewable Lubricants ....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: dparm
Their PDSes were all updated within the last few months because of the formula tweaks.


Of course I might be mistaken but the PDS I see for the 0W30 shows the same #s as I have seen for the last couple of years...I think.

I haven't noticed any change either.

One thing that doesn't add up is the tech's claim that they use base oils with a VI of 220 but the end product has a VI of 193 and requires VII's to achieve that. Perhaps what he meant to say
was that one of the base oils in the formulation has a VI of 220; that I'd believe.
 
I think the RLI confirmation that the 0W-30 grade has a HTHS vis of 3.5cP+ should be satisfying enough for most.

But again why not an exact value? The secrecy kills me and is a strike against RLI IMO. There is a reason for it, I'm just not sure what it is. I have a hunch though, and the RLI tech's comment about their 5w-40 oil being "a bit thick for it's grade" is very telling as is his comment that their "most stout formula" 5W-30. If their 0W-30 has a HTHS vis at 3.5cP+ then what's the HTHS of their "most stout formula" 5W-30; obviously pretty high, perhaps in the 40wt range?
Like most high ester content oils, their HTHS vis's relative to their KV100 spec's are very high (just look at RL) and they don't fit well with the SAE oil grading system.

RLI's 20wt oils with a HTHS vis' >2.9cP are definitely "a bit thick for [their] grade".
The conclusion I draw from this is that all RLI oils are "a bit thick for their grade" and like RL perform like a conventional oil a grade heavier.

It's a common misunderstanding on BITOG that the higher the HTHS vis for an oil grade the better but that simply isn't true. The KV100 spec' in high ester content oils tends to understate an oil's true operational viscosity in an engine while the accurate HTHS vis does not. If an oil has a HTHS vis that is more typical of the next heavier grade, then as far as the operational viscosity in your engine is concerned, that's what it is.
RLI obviously knows this, and that's why they're being coy on the HTHS spec's for their oils.
 
I'll chalk part of it up to them not being the greatest at B2C type stuff. They're really more of a B2B that also does B2C on the side.

The 0w30 and 5w30 having 3.5-3.6 HTHS values confirms they are heavy 30s.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
I'll chalk part of it up to them not being the greatest at B2C type stuff. They're really more of a B2B that also does B2C on the side.

Well said.


Originally Posted By: dparm
The 0w30 and 5w30 having 3.5-3.6 HTHS values confirms they are heavy 30s.

At this juncture, it might be worthwhile to mention some more of what I've learned about the 0w-30. From what I can gather, it should have top-notch anti-wear properties, but its real party piece is low friction. IIRC it will match or beat a lot of xw-20s in that respect. It's also a relatively "clean" oil, with a low-ash add pack; this should help with keeping intake system deposits low. The only possible trade-off is all-out OCI ability (e.g. it has a starting TBN of around 6; that's probably how they made it low-ash without gimping the anti-wear).

I think this is particularly significant in light of the confirmation that it has an HTHS of 3.5+. The combination of good anti-wear with top-notch friction reduction, at the expense of nothing but OCI length, is perfect for a lot of people here. If in addition this oil does indeed have the magic HTHS number of 3.5+, that means it allows people with Euro performance cars to get the most important benefits of "Energy Conserving" oils (as long as they're willing to keep their OCIs relatively short). Food for thought, IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Like most high ester content oils, their HTHS vis's relative to their KV100 spec's are very high (just look at RL) and they don't fit well with the SAE oil grading system.
..or the other way around: the primitive and outdated SAE oil grading system is not the best fit for the modern high technology.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
RLI's 20wt oils with a HTHS vis' >2.9cP are definitely "a bit thick for [their] grade".
The conclusion I draw from this is that all RLI oils are "a bit thick for their grade" and like RL perform like a conventional oil a grade heavier.
And that's why Dr Haas can get away with his Dr Sloan Magic Formula Oil on a Lambo.
You made HTHS the center of your oil universe. Be careful: there are many other stars in that sky.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm

The 0w30 and 5w30 having 3.5-3.6 HTHS values confirms they are heavy 30s.

Yes for the 0W-30 but based on RLI's comments about the 5W-30 being their "most stout formula" I'd say it's likely closer to 3.8cP, perhaps on par with RL's 5W-30.
 
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Like most high ester content oils, their HTHS vis's relative to their KV100 spec's are very high (just look at RL) and they don't fit well with the SAE oil grading system.
..or the other way around: the primitive and outdated SAE oil grading system is not the best fit for the modern high technology.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
RLI's 20wt oils with a HTHS vis' >2.9cP are definitely "a bit thick for [their] grade".
The conclusion I draw from this is that all RLI oils are "a bit thick for their grade" and like RL perform like a conventional oil a grade heavier.
And that's why Dr Haas can get away with his Dr Sloan Magic Formula Oil on a Lambo.
You made HTHS the center of your oil universe. Be careful: there are many other stars in that sky.



On the contrary, YK, the SAE grading is perfect for today's uneducated consumers. Heck, there are a lot of vehicle owners that think all cars use the same oil and there's no such thing as a different type.

The car says 5w30, so they tell Jiffy Lube 5w30. Done and done.

Can you imagine explaining to them, "Well I need a low-ash heavy 30 with TBN greater than 8 and a HTHS value of 3.5 or better."
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
On the contrary, YK, the SAE grading is perfect for today's uneducated consumers.
Could not agree more.. Seems the time for an adequately satisfying system has yet to come
 
The kinematic method of measuring viscosity at 40C and 100C in an IC engine was declared "obsolete" 30 years ago in favor of the adoption of the same methodology used in the HTHS test. Why it never happened I don't know. It would have eliminated a lot of misunderstanding when one talks about an oil's viscosity.
It still comes up from time to time in SAE and other circles.
 
Anyways, d00df00d's above point is very valid. The 0w30 and 5w30 seem to offer exceptional high-temp performance without being too thick at lower temperatures. A bit of 'best of both worlds'. I'm pretty certain I'll go for their 0w30 on my next change.
 
I have a Miata that I track regularly. I would be interested in either the 0W-30 or 5W-30. Thoughts on which I should run with? I would lean towards the 0W-30, I guess. One thing that really stands out between the two, according to the PDS, is the flash points: 215F vs 240F!

robert
 
Of the two I'd suggest the 0W-30 or even their heavy 0W-20 which is really a light 30wt oil or a blend between the two to meet your needs.
The only way to know for sure, and to fine tune your viscosity selection is with an oil pressure gauge, which I presume you have if you track your car a lot, as you say. The objective being, to run the lightest oil that still provides the minimum OP at elevated rev's as specified by Mazda, at the hottest oil temp's you will experience.
Since you already have experience tracking your car what oil have you been running and what's your OP like?
 
Quote:
RLI is not cooking oil, it's a Grp. V biobased ester as most esters are from fatty acids, anyway RLI has a great track record and have heard nothing but good things about them.


RLI oils seem to be very good for engines with high fuel dilution.

RLI base oils are a mix of vegetable oils (Group V) and PAO's (Group IV) or GroupIII oils.

They use a special set of organo-metallic anti-oxidants to mitigate the oxidation of the vegetable oils.

The current vegetable oils from GM crops have better oxidation stability than oils from 10 years ago.

Mola
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Perhaps what he meant to say
was that one of the base oils in the formulation has a VI of 220; that I'd believe.


Yes. Vegetable oils have really high VI's but when mixed with other oils that have lower VI's, the resultant VI is lower.
 
Quote:
Their spreads are way too wide to be due to reformulation, IMO. 13-15 in a 5w40 is pretty significant. If it was 13-13.5 I'd ignore it. And their worthless HTHS spec doesn't help sell me on the oil either.



Take look at Schaeffer's PDS and you will see variations in viscosity. These are due to manufacturing variations.

IF no viscosity variation is published by a manufacturer, you can bet they are quoting a mean value.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Of the two I'd suggest the 0W-30 or even their heavy 0W-20 which is really a light 30wt oil or a blend between the two to meet your needs.
The only way to know for sure, and to fine tune your viscosity selection is with an oil pressure gauge, which I presume you have if you track your car a lot, as you say. The objective being, to run the lightest oil that still provides the minimum OP at elevated rev's as specified by Mazda, at the hottest oil temp's you will experience.
Since you already have experience tracking your car what oil have you been running and what's your OP like?



No factory OP or OT gauges. It was added later.

I have been running Motul 300V 4T 5w40. It's probably overkill for my application, hence my interest in changing to something less expensive.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Fred I thought Chrysler had switched to 5W-20 on the new Jeeps?
Anyway, yes the RLI 0W-30 does shear a lot but I wouldn't worry about it as I believe it starts as a heavy 30wt in the first place.


Yup, pretty sure the new Jeeps use 5w20; but ours are both 2004, which specify xw30. The engine changed for the 2007 model year.



Originally Posted By: d00df00d

When you talk about an Audi engine, I assume you're talking about an RS4, owned by someone who goes by RI_RS4 on the forums. Correct me if I'm wrong. But if so, the oil in that case was the 5w-40 HD, which used the toughest VIIs available and thus was quite shear-stable.

Until recently, the 0w-30 used different VIIs that were not as tough. However, the formulation has recently been updated and now uses the same VIIs as the 5w-40 HD (among other things), so it should be a lot more shear-stable now.


You got it; that's the thread and member I was talking about, and thanks for the info. Matter of fact, thanks to everyone for the insight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
Valvoline Synthetic Oil
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
dumkid
T
Fuel Economy vs. Engine Protection: Will a heavier oil protect my engine from Small Particle Damage?
Replies
18
Views
2K
4WD
Mugen_fn2
Civic FN2 oil choice
Replies
19
Views
689
Mugen_fn2
Corneileous
Oil for 2018 Ram 1500 Hemi
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
4K
Corneileous
D
Does the oil brand actually matter? Is this all just hyperbole?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
7K
wareze
Back
Top