Trying Renewable Lubricants ....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
7,998
At our next oil change in the Wrangler I'm considering trying RLI's vegetable based motor oil.

I know there are lots of opinions out there, and they're welcome. Also like to hear from anyone that has tried them, and what the results were.

Thanks to all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
im friends w our local ford top tech in our county, he does alot of diesel engine work here, i asked him about ppl using cooking oil as diesel fuel, he said its a horrible idea, i asked why? i cant remember his exact wording but something to the effect of "causing grit"
 
I recently ran RLI BioSyn SHP 0w-30 after several high-end Motul synthetics, including 300V (their race oil). RLI matched or beat all of them, despite being the thinnest oil and coping with the worst fuel dilution levels:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=139300&Number=2017350


Here's the same oil in my brother's car (although with no prior history of comparable UOAs):
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=141601&Number=2055937


Note that both of these UOAs were on the old version of the 0w-30. It has since been tweaked for better shear stability and anti-wear properties.

I switched to RLI's 5w-40 HD to shoot for the longest possible OCIs. My brother is using the newly tweaked 0w-30.
 
Originally Posted By: kcfx4
im friends w our local ford top tech in our county, he does alot of diesel engine work here, i asked him about ppl using cooking oil as diesel fuel, he said its a horrible idea, i asked why? i cant remember his exact wording but something to the effect of "causing grit"


What does this have to do with the OP running RLI as his engine oil?
 
now that i think about it...absolutely nothing! i missed the rli part......speed reading sometimes = dumb post
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hate2work
Originally Posted By: kcfx4
im friends w our local ford top tech in our county, he does alot of diesel engine work here, i asked him about ppl using cooking oil as diesel fuel, he said its a horrible idea, i asked why? i cant remember his exact wording but something to the effect of "causing grit"


What does this have to do with the OP running RLI as his engine oil?
LOL!!

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.
 
Currently using Renewable Lubricants 5W-30 in my wife's Mitsubishi for an annual OCI. Used it for 2 annual OCIs in my 2001 Saturn, only gave up because of the high S-series oil consumption ($$). I have UOAs from the Saturn posted.
 
doofood, what bothers me about RLI is how they specify such a wide range of values on their PDSes. It's hard for me to tell if I'm getting a light, medium, or thin oil. Is there really that much variability in their production process? Would two different VOAs return vastly different results?

Until they lock that down and provide real data (or a much narrower range), I refuse to buy it.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, I really want to try it, but their PDSes all seem very similar. For example, HTHS seems to be ">2.9" on all of them. That doesn't give me much confidence that the oil meets specs for a European vehicle.

robert
 
That's precisely how I feel. My car needs 3.5 minimum.

And when I see KV values in a spread of "13-15.25" that makes me just shake my head. It's like a gamble when you buy that stuff. Imagine buying a house with the same mentality...
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
doofood, what bothers me about RLI is how they specify such a wide range of values on their PDSes. It's hard for me to tell if I'm getting a light, medium, or thin oil. Is there really that much variability in their production process? Would two different VOAs return vastly different results?

Until they lock that down and provide real data (or a much narrower range), I refuse to buy it.

Can't blame you.

For what my opinion is worth (i.e. probably not much), I don't get the sense that it's about variation in production processes. I think it's just that they are a small outfit and don't have time to keep updating the PDSs with the new info every time a formula is tweaked (which is relatively often compared to other companies since they are working with very new technology), and/or they simply don't feel it's worth their time to pin down more accurate numbers based on who their customers tend to be. I'm sure it'd be far more informative to ask them, though.

For my purposes, the recommendations I am receiving from Terry Dyson (based on my application) and my correspondence with the folks at RLI (based on their products) gave me enough confidence that RLI was worth trying out. The UOA (which you may notice was at a relatively short interval) was what sealed the deal. If I didn't have those things, I probably would share your feelings.
 
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.

I know they are a small outfit but I feel like a few small improvements to both their website and technical data would really go a long way towards growing the brand. They love touting all the benefits of the basestocks and such, so why not back it up with the objective data?
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
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.

I know they are a small outfit but I feel like a few small improvements to both their website and technical data would really go a long way towards growing the brand. They love touting all the benefits of the basestocks and such, so why not back it up with the objective data?


You are right on that, the >2.9 straight down the line is a little disconcerting. My biggest suggestion would be to improve the website. I think the HT/HS tests are very expensive but I think it would pay dividends if people could see the true values. I still think they make fine lubes and would be pushed out of the business if their oils didn't perform.
 
I tend to agree with you.
IMO it really is unacceptable that they don't provide the all important HTHS vis spec's for their oils.

Nevertheless I've been tempted to try their 0W-20 (NOACK 9%)as I believe it's one of their better formulations, certainly better than their own 5W-20 (NOACK 11%). But with a HTHS vis >2.9cP that really makes it a light 30wt oil, which is fine if you want a light 30wt but not if you want a HTHS 2.6cP 20wt.

The other thing that I've learned about RLI is that they use low VI base oils. That may be an inherent characteristic of the vegetable oils they use, but the bottom line is that all their oils contain VII's. The end result is that in most applications they shear noticeably. Not a bad thing necessarily but I do expect more for what is supposed to be a high end oil.
By comparison the 0W-20 oils from RL, Fuchs and Amsoil contain no VII's. Not sure about Motul's 300V.

Still I might try then one of these days.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
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.

I'm not saying it's "due to reformulation" per se. I'm saying maybe they throw out a range because they don't want to have to keep updating things as they reformulate; a bigger range allows more freedom.

I don't mean to excuse them, by the way. Just speculating with you.


Originally Posted By: dparm
I know they are a small outfit but I feel like a few small improvements to both their website and technical data would really go a long way towards growing the brand. They love touting all the benefits of the basestocks and such, so why not back it up with the objective data?

Agreed 100%.

I think they're just not used to catering to individual enthusiasts. The most significant work they have done has been with government agencies, many of them involving custom formulations; thus, it has been more important for their products to meet certain specs that do not get listed on the PDSs.

I love their product, but they certainly have a lot of work ahead of them if they want to break into the enthusiast market.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
And when I see KV values in a spread of "13-15.25" that makes me just shake my head.
Within SSD is OK, the HTHS number is not OK
 
i go to school for automotive engineering and they are doing research on BIO-OILS there are inherent problems with natural fatty oils.
 
Originally Posted By: Bruce T
Fred, what oil viscosity is specified for your Wrangler?


Hi Bruce,
If I can be so bold and speak for Fred, I believe the spec' oil is 5W-20, with a HTHS vis of 2.6cP. Since RLI's lightest oil (0W-20) has a HTHS vis' >2.9cP it isn't really suitable.
But it does shear, so it wouldn't be that much thicker than necessary.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
But it does shear, so it wouldn't be that much thicker than necessary.

And you know this thanks to what body of statistically valid knowledge?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top