Redline 5w40, hths 4.6

Status
Not open for further replies.

JXW

Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
286
Location
Milford, MI (USA)
Drove about 300 miles today, 2010 bmw 328i, 6M. Anywhere from 70mph to 100mph. Milage was above 30 per gallon. Who says thick us bad for mpg???
 
Originally Posted By: JXW
Drove about 300 miles today, 2010 bmw 328i, 6M. Anywhere from 70mph to 100mph. Milage was above 30 per gallon. Who says thick us bad for mpg???

What was MPG before? 2010 328i 6M should easily go above 30mpg in that speed range.
By the way, why not running 5W30? It has HTHS of 3.7cp.
Also, how engine behaves? Sound? You have Carly for BMW to track other parameters of engine?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JXW
Drove about 300 miles today, 2010 bmw 328i, 6M. Anywhere from 70mph to 100mph. Milage was above 30 per gallon. Who says thick us bad for mpg???

Do this comparison: set cruise control at any speed for 100 miles with these two oils: current Redline 5w40 and next oil change of any synthetic 0W20.

You will see no less 2-3% MPG improvement with 0W20.
 
Thick/thin oil makes its impact on mpg mostly on short trips (when the oil is cold). You won't see much of a difference on long highway drives.

However, fuel economy does vary a lot based on speed.

Here's a link to an online calculator.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php

Here's a link to some sample data.
http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_Drag_List

I put in some back of the envelope data... guessed 3500 pounds of weight (with you and luggage...), 0.26 Cd (drag coeff), 23 square feet frontal area. The rest, I left the default values in.

60 mph = 42 mpg
70 mph = 34 mpg
80 mph = 28 mpg
90 mph = 23 mpg
100 mph = 19.5 mpg

30 mpg is doable, but depends on how much time you spent at 70 vs. 100, and in-between, of course.
 
You'll never be able to measure the difference in daily usage between oil viscosities, no matter how carefully you measure, particularly when those viscosities are within the norms for an engine. Even the claimed mileage gains touted by EPA, the oil companies, and so forth, are well below the error bars that you and I would encounter in measuring the fuel economy.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
You'll never be able to measure the difference in daily usage between oil viscosities, no matter how carefully you measure, particularly when those viscosities are within the norms for an engine. Even the claimed mileage gains touted by EPA, the oil companies, and so forth, are well below the error bars that you and I would encounter in measuring the fuel economy.


Why so much emphasis on the oil and mpg by thE OEMs? I agree with you, 100%.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
You'll never be able to measure the difference in daily usage between oil viscosities, no matter how carefully you measure, particularly when those viscosities are within the norms for an engine. Even the claimed mileage gains touted by EPA, the oil companies, and so forth, are well below the error bars that you and I would encounter in measuring the fuel economy.


I agree.

Although in most oil-related literature cited on BITOG they don't even have error bars for anything.

Maybe that's how they can claim there is a difference?
 
Originally Posted By: JXW
Why so much emphasis on the oil and mpg by thE OEMs? I agree with you, 100%.

They can claim credits, and they have the facilities to actually measure the difference. It does save us money, just not a giant pile or anything. Heck, think of it this way. Even if you used Red Line at regular price for one year for your oil changes, and the next year switched to the cheapest approved lube you could find. Would your total money spent on the vehicle, including oil, gas, repairs, insurance, washes, and so forth really change much? It could wind up being almost unnoticeable in the final total.

camrydriver111: I'm sure they use error bars in their testing. But, when they have multi-million dollar labs to test these things, they can obtain results we can't replicate in the real world.
 
Unless it's old stock of RL 5w40, the HTHS is 4.3 or 4.4 cP (both of the Euro oils). The now-old CJ-4 5w40 was 4.6 cP.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
camrydriver111: I'm sure they use error bars in their testing. But, when they have multi-million dollar labs to test these things, they can obtain results we can't replicate in the real world.


For the purposes of things (like CAFE), the error analysis is done in the development of the tests, then the standardised test, test rig, and regime becomes an "absolute" for comparison purposes.

Then manufacturers find the weak points, and play to them to get incremental improvements in those tests.

I've spent $Ms on mechanical turbine upgrades with the total improvement less than the error bars on a single heat rate test...doing one before and after an upgrade shutdown where other work takes place messes the whole show up even more.

As an aside, Valve Wide Open tests for power output takes away a myriad of variables and can give me confidence in the upgrade...then monitoring fuel consumption over 4,000 operating hours, over Greenhouse certified weighers, with fuel composition/CV tested daily and measured to 4 significant figures, we can then find that today was better/worse than 6 months ago.

VW reckon that up to 10% can be won or lost depending on ambient.
 
Yes, the error bars should be standardized by the testing methods. I assume that's common in those ASTM tests and the like. It's also noteworthy that the oil companies do hint at the error bars when they talk about wear protection, as in the claim that "no one" protects better, rather than stating that "we protect better" than anyone else.

It's always hard to back up fuel economy claims outside of a lab when the legislated error bar on a gasoline pump is higher than the claimed benefit, not to mention the many other variables that hit when trying to calculate fuel economy.
 
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Unless it's old stock of RL 5w40, the HTHS is 4.3 or 4.4 cP (both of the Euro oils). The now-old CJ-4 5w40 was 4.6 cP


RL 5w40 non euro, the RL site lists as 4.6 hths.
 
Originally Posted By: JXW
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Unless it's old stock of RL 5w40, the HTHS is 4.3 or 4.4 cP (both of the Euro oils). The now-old CJ-4 5w40 was 4.6 cP


RL 5w40 non euro, the RL site lists as 4.6 hths.


There is no non-Euro 5w40 anymore. The CJ-4 product is gone. Chances are you're looking at an old data sheet or data on the previous CJ-4 5w40 oil.

The latest data sheet:

http://www.redlineoil.com/content/files/tech/Motor Oil PDS 5-13.pdf

Here are the two 5w40s now:

http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=3&pcid=21

http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=144&pcid=21
 
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Originally Posted By: JXW
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Unless it's old stock of RL 5w40, the HTHS is 4.3 or 4.4 cP (both of the Euro oils). The now-old CJ-4 5w40 was 4.6 cP


RL 5w40 non euro, the RL site lists as 4.6 hths.


There is no non-Euro 5w40 anymore. The CJ-4 product is gone. Chances are you're looking at an old data sheet or data on the previous CJ-4 5w40 oil.

The latest data sheet:

http://www.redlineoil.com/content/files/tech/Motor Oil PDS 5-13.pdf

Here are the two 5w40s now:

http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=3&pcid=21

http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=144&pcid=21


I have the non Euro 5w40 now. Temps are warming this month, I like it. Winter will run 5w30 RL.
 
Originally Posted By: JXW
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Originally Posted By: JXW
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Unless it's old stock of RL 5w40, the HTHS is 4.3 or 4.4 cP (both of the Euro oils). The now-old CJ-4 5w40 was 4.6 cP


RL 5w40 non euro, the RL site lists as 4.6 hths.


There is no non-Euro 5w40 anymore. The CJ-4 product is gone. Chances are you're looking at an old data sheet or data on the previous CJ-4 5w40 oil.

The latest data sheet:

http://www.redlineoil.com/content/files/tech/Motor Oil PDS 5-13.pdf

Here are the two 5w40s now:

http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=3&pcid=21

http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=144&pcid=21


I have the non Euro 5w40 now. Temps are warming this month, I like it. Winter will run 5w30 RL.


I don't see why you could not run RL 5w30 year-round.
 
I agree, the last fill was 5w40 service pro brand. I accrued 7k miles on that feeling 5w40 was working well.

What I didn't know is the difference in hths of the RL to the service pro.

I notice the difference on acceleration mostly as the heavier RL creates a slight lag in comparison to the lighter service pro. No change in fuel economy to speak of.

I had assumed dealer was using RL oil but found later not the case. Shop was independent.
 
Originally Posted By: JXW
I agree, the last fill was 5w40 service pro brand. I accrued 7k miles on that feeling 5w40 was working well.

What I didn't know is the difference in hths of the RL to the service pro.

I notice the difference on acceleration mostly as the heavier RL creates a slight lag in comparison to the lighter service pro. No change in fuel economy to speak of.

I had assumed dealer was using RL oil but found later not the case. Shop was independent.

Use RL 5W30 if you want to stick to RL.
As far as I know RL recommends in certain applications going one grade down when using their oils.
 
Originally Posted By: JXW
I had assumed dealer was using RL oil but found later not the case. Shop was independent.


WHICH dealers, or shops (besides dedicated tuner/speed shops) would EVER use Red Line as a standard fill?!?!
21.gif
 
I know a shop nearby which is using Motul 300V as a standard fill for some cars
laugh.gif

They wanted to put 300V 15W50 in my Barchetta, no way (was there for a tire change by the way, and we ended up talking about oils since they had a pretty nice stash on display)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top