Redline Oil & TEOST ASTM D 6335

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
37,910
Location
NJ
Is anyone surprised that Redline barely passed this test?

Quote:
This test method predicts the high
temperature deposit‐forming tendencies of
an engine oil using the thermo‐oxidation
engine oil simulation test (TEOST). This
method can be used to screen oil samples or
as a quality assurance tool.


Quote:
Motor oils can form deposits when exposed to increased heat, reducing efficiency and contributing to poor
overall performance. According to the ASTM, the TEOST test method “is designed to predict the high temperature
deposit forming tendencies of an engine oil. This test method can be used to screen oil samples or as a
quality assurance tool.”1 Given the number of vehicles now equipped with direct fuel injection, turbochargers
and other performance-enhancing technologies that increase heat, deposit control has taken on increased
importance. To meet the API SN Resource Conserving and ILSAC GF-5 motor oil specifications, a 5W-30
motor oil must limit total deposit formation to 30 mg or less.


http://www.swri.org/4org/d08/gastests/pdfs/ilsacGF5-14.pdf

Knowng Redline barely passed, would you still consider it in a turbo or DI engine?
 
I wouldn't use it in either honestly. I don't see any advantage to RL anymore. Maximum shear stability is one great quality of RL.
 
Not really. 30mg is the max allowed. Lower the better. The old Mobil 1 SM was around the 5mg range. Now it's in the low 20's. Redline barely passed. Not a good sign IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
Didn't that one Russian BMW enthusiast site's test show similar results?

do you have a link?
 
Most likely failed due to High MolyDTC + EP (or equivalent) %. I would Place Bets that 0w20 SM Toyota OE Oil and Mazdda Idemitsu Fails too - though moot as ILSAC Ow20 are exempt from 1 of the 2 thin film deposit tests. Realise this is NOT an in situ test.
Years ago, Noticed that the sliding pistons and cams of our mid 2000s toyotas loved the old Formula Shell oil with tons O moly but the car stuck rings constantly. Trade off.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
Didn't that one Russian BMW enthusiast site's test show similar results?

Yes it did but our Tom_NJ pooh_poohed there test methodology.

But I agree with Tempest, this test is only a potential concern in DI and maybe turbo applications.
It was also only a test of one oil; RL 5W-30. I'd be interested in a test of their more modern 0W oils such as their 0W-40.

RL has lots of proven advantages in high temp' racing type applications. I remember it was one oil that was recommended in racing Porsches that didn't cause high rpm detonation when the oil consumption was high.

Back in the day there was always a trade-off between maximum lubricating protection and cleanliness. Castor bean oil provided unsurpassed protection in high temp' conditions at the expense of hard carbon deposits. For many reasons it was a totally impractical oil to use for every day street use.

RL is a race oil formulator that makes non API approved street oils for high performance applications. It has always been the case that their oils are not ideal for typical every day street use applications.

If it wasn't for the high cost, I'd run RL or a RL blend in all my cars.
 
TEOST 33C (ASTM 6335) Bench Test
The Thermo-Oxidation Engine Oil Simulation Test (TEOST®) 33C was originally developed for and made part of GF-2 to evaluate Turbocharger deposit formation. This test was not included in GF-3 or GF-4 but this test, TEOST 33C has been included in the draft specification proposed for GF-5. The GF-2 Performance limit was 60 mg maximum and the GF-5 proposal weighs in at 25 mg maximum. This test is meant to evaluate the high temperature deposit forming tendencies of crankcase oil.
This test simulates the cyclic temperatures encountered by lubricating oil in a turbocharged gasoline fueled engine.
About 100 ml of test oil is used in a 12 cycle/2 hour test. The test piece is a hollow heated rod (TEOST® Depositor Rod) that will accumulate deposits over the 2 hour test period. The test oil flows over the rod ant about 0.5g/minute while the test piece is cycled 12 times over a temperature range of 200°C to 480°C. The increase in the weight of the rod is the performance parameter measured for this procedure. The greater the weight gain, the poorer the performance.

TEOST 33C Test Conditions


Equipment
SAVANT TEOST

Test Length, hours
2

Number of Cycles
12

Cycle Duration, minutes
9.5

Depositor Rod Temperature, °C
200 to 480

Depositor Oil Flow, g/minute
0.45

Oil Sample volume, ml
100

Catalyst
Ferric Napthenate


The TEOST 33C and TEOST MHT-4 tests are designed to measure high temperature deposit forming tendencies of lubricating oils but the procedures are quite different. The TEOST 33C version cycles between 200°C and 480°C for two hours and is primarily designed to protect turbochargers. The MHT-4 is run at a constant temperature of 285°C for 24 hours and is to evaluate piston deposits.
Together the test results from both versions paint a picture of the candidate oil's high temperature deposit forming tendency.
 
The TEOST results provided by Amsoil are pretty revealing. I would not use Redline in a turbo application.

With that said, RL has little to offer for 99% of daily drivers.

*The Honda HTO-06 doesn't discriminate against high Moly oils. fyi.
 
Quote:
But I agree with Tempest, this test is only a potential concern in DI and maybe turbo applications.
It was also only a test of one oil; RL 5W-30. I'd be interested in a test of their more modern 0W oils such as their 0W-40.


It IS for turbos. And a 0w grade would have worse performance due to the VM's used. This is a big blow for Redline IMO.
 
Ive not been impresed by redline lubes for many years now. MolaKule's diff lube quieted my BMW LSD moreso than any RL lube ever did, Amsoil MTF has retained shift character better, longer than redline MTL ever did, and while Ive never used redline lube oils, the UOA results we have seen havent been that stellar.

IMO, the target market for this product is just the people who (foolishly) demand "no 'fake' synthetic Group III basestocks".
 
^+1 I agree. Too many excuses and opinions from people that just don't know what they are talking about IMO.
 
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.
 
UOA's for RL have been overall pretty poor. Higher Al and PB and occasional TBN down to 0. It has shown to not be that good of an oil, and you're also making excuses for it when it clearly failed the GF-5 turbo test.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
CATERHAM, you're so off-base. 1. UOA's for RL have been overall pretty poor. Higher Al and PB and occasional TBN down to 0. It has shown not to be that good of an oil and you're also making excuses for it when it clearly failed the GF-5 turbo test.

That's ridiculous.
If you're not getting high AL and Pb in most UOA and you're not, then you cannot attribute it to the oil.
A TBN down to 0; now you're just being silly.
You yourself ran RL 0W-20 for 10,000 miles and the TBN wasn't down to 0; a very decent UOA IIRC.
 
How is it ridiculous? What's silly is RL doesn't even PASS the GF-5 high temperature turbo deposit test. That's ridiculous.

RL is one of the only oils I've seen a few UOA's of that showed a 0 TBN. And there are many cases of elevated Al/Pb in UOA's. Whether it's a chemical reaction and nothing to worry about I don't know but I wouldn't want to see that in my report.
 
As I've said previously, running RL in one's daily driver doesn't make a lot of sense. It is one thing to aim for low wear numbers in a low stress environment vs high stress track use. Two completely different demands are put on the motor oil.

That said, it is a BITOG affliction to read way too much into a few ppm of elemental metals in a UOA and then condemn the oil.
Just like those that condemned Mobil when there appeared to be a trend in higher than average Fe levels.

RL is a great oil for high performance (racing) applications and that's what it should be used for.

It would be interesting to see how other high performance oils such as RLI do in the TEOST test. This bio-ester based oil is favoured by many in DI applications.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top