oil question
11-23-2010, 01:09 PM
#51
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 1,465
I won't dare enter the chemistry conversation behind oils but I can share a real world unplanned test.
My other passion is high performance offshore boats, mine is powered by a pair of 650HP 522 cu in (.060 over) chevy big blocks. I've always run Redline on a 30 hour (about 1800 mile car equiv) change interval. One weekend I was in a pinch and needed oil for a change. Went down to Wallyworld and got Mobil 1 15w50, I have 14 qt pans on these motors. After the change I took it out for a run, now if you don't know about boats they are propped so at WOT the engine will reach its desired max RPM and not be able to push beyond that, on my motors its 5600 rpm. Basically running the motor at full load all the time. The motors are equipped with 2 pass oil coolers. After a 10 minute WOT blast I noticed that my oil temp was about 15 degrees hotter on both motors (245) than before the change. The following weekend I changed the oil again to put Redline back in, took it for a blast and even at 20 minutes of WOT (5600 rpm) the oil temp never went over 230. Water temp was unchanged at 120. (lets not start the battle of hot vs cold water temps).
There is definitely something different between M1 and Redline. I attribute the higher temps to more friction in the motor unless someone can prove otherwise. Air temp and water temp were all the same. This was all the proof I needed.
My other passion is high performance offshore boats, mine is powered by a pair of 650HP 522 cu in (.060 over) chevy big blocks. I've always run Redline on a 30 hour (about 1800 mile car equiv) change interval. One weekend I was in a pinch and needed oil for a change. Went down to Wallyworld and got Mobil 1 15w50, I have 14 qt pans on these motors. After the change I took it out for a run, now if you don't know about boats they are propped so at WOT the engine will reach its desired max RPM and not be able to push beyond that, on my motors its 5600 rpm. Basically running the motor at full load all the time. The motors are equipped with 2 pass oil coolers. After a 10 minute WOT blast I noticed that my oil temp was about 15 degrees hotter on both motors (245) than before the change. The following weekend I changed the oil again to put Redline back in, took it for a blast and even at 20 minutes of WOT (5600 rpm) the oil temp never went over 230. Water temp was unchanged at 120. (lets not start the battle of hot vs cold water temps).
There is definitely something different between M1 and Redline. I attribute the higher temps to more friction in the motor unless someone can prove otherwise. Air temp and water temp were all the same. This was all the proof I needed.
The reason why your engines were running hotter was due to higher friction. A group III base stock, even though highly refined, still has impurities within the base stock itself. Inconsistent sized molecules create more heat and do not pass each other as easily as the consistent molecules within a group IV base stock do. Your real world comparison is easy to explain, and thanks again for your testing.
11-23-2010, 01:44 PM
#52
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Acworth,Ga.
Posts: 812
This is why I REALLY try to stay out of oil discussions.
In nearly any street legal vehicle it doesn't matter what oil is used. Any oil that meets the vehicle manufacturers specifications, changed regularly (3k to 5k miles), will provide proper lubrication throughout any reasonable engine life expectation (200k+ miles)--and how many people (except me) actually keep a vehicle that long?
Studying and acquiring an intimate knowledge of Amsoil's various assertions and claims does not make a lubrication engineer. Their products may indeed have superior characteristics, evidenced by laboratory testing; however the issue is that those characteristics are irrelevant to lubricating an internal combustion engine; a filthy environment where regular change intervals are the only way to remove the nasties that combustion leaves behind.
The "quality" of the base stock has little to nothing to do with the amount of acids, water, and other bad things that are combustion's by-products; nor does it affect the life of the various anti-wear, anti-corrosion, anti-foaming and other additives.
It's sort of like "Stoli" vs. the house brand. One may taste better, and better impress those around you, but in the end they both provide the same lubrication.
Overall it was refreshing to see commentary from someone with an obvious knowledge of synthetic motor oils, presenting facts rather than marketing department driven hyperbole...
Now you can see why I REALLY try to stay out of "which oil is best" threads...
In nearly any street legal vehicle it doesn't matter what oil is used. Any oil that meets the vehicle manufacturers specifications, changed regularly (3k to 5k miles), will provide proper lubrication throughout any reasonable engine life expectation (200k+ miles)--and how many people (except me) actually keep a vehicle that long?
Studying and acquiring an intimate knowledge of Amsoil's various assertions and claims does not make a lubrication engineer. Their products may indeed have superior characteristics, evidenced by laboratory testing; however the issue is that those characteristics are irrelevant to lubricating an internal combustion engine; a filthy environment where regular change intervals are the only way to remove the nasties that combustion leaves behind.
The "quality" of the base stock has little to nothing to do with the amount of acids, water, and other bad things that are combustion's by-products; nor does it affect the life of the various anti-wear, anti-corrosion, anti-foaming and other additives.
It's sort of like "Stoli" vs. the house brand. One may taste better, and better impress those around you, but in the end they both provide the same lubrication.
Overall it was refreshing to see commentary from someone with an obvious knowledge of synthetic motor oils, presenting facts rather than marketing department driven hyperbole...
Now you can see why I REALLY try to stay out of "which oil is best" threads...
11-23-2010, 04:02 PM
#56
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: BC
Posts: 244
I had a similar experience on my 2003 BMW E39 M5 with the 400HP 4.9 liter V8. The oil spec from BMW for the engine is the owner's choice of either BMW-branded 5w-30 or Castrol TWS Motorsport 10w-60. I tried both. What I saw consistently on track days was that the engine oil temperature was about 15 degrees Celsius cooler with the 5w-30 than it was with the 10w-60. I was surprised at first because the TWS is the "better" oil, but in the end I concluded that lower viscosity = lower pumping losses = lower running temperature. It was all about the viscosity and the quality of the oil didn't enter into it.
What was happening in your boat engine is a mystery. You didn't say what Redline viscosity you use, but I assume it was 15w-50 if you were using M1 15w-50 to replace it. It's hard to believe that the temperature difference was caused by a large viscosity difference between the two oils. If the M1 was thinning out, it should have produced lower running temps, not higher.
Anyway, the Redline is good stuff. It's construction is similar to the Castrol TWS 10w-60 that BMW's "M" and "Motorsport" divisions are so fond of: both products are a PAO/Ester blend built for performance rather than an API spec.
What was happening in your boat engine is a mystery. You didn't say what Redline viscosity you use, but I assume it was 15w-50 if you were using M1 15w-50 to replace it. It's hard to believe that the temperature difference was caused by a large viscosity difference between the two oils. If the M1 was thinning out, it should have produced lower running temps, not higher.
Anyway, the Redline is good stuff. It's construction is similar to the Castrol TWS 10w-60 that BMW's "M" and "Motorsport" divisions are so fond of: both products are a PAO/Ester blend built for performance rather than an API spec.
I won't dare enter the chemistry conversation behind oils but I can share a real world unplanned test.
My other passion is high performance offshore boats, mine is powered by a pair of 650HP 522 cu in (.060 over) chevy big blocks. I've always run Redline on a 30 hour (about 1800 mile car equiv) change interval. One weekend I was in a pinch and needed oil for a change. Went down to Wallyworld and got Mobil 1 15w50, I have 14 qt pans on these motors. After the change I took it out for a run, now if you don't know about boats they are propped so at WOT the engine will reach its desired max RPM and not be able to push beyond that, on my motors its 5600 rpm. Basically running the motor at full load all the time. The motors are equipped with 2 pass oil coolers. After a 10 minute WOT blast I noticed that my oil temp was about 15 degrees hotter on both motors (245) than before the change. The following weekend I changed the oil again to put Redline back in, took it for a blast and even at 20 minutes of WOT (5600 rpm) the oil temp never went over 230. Water temp was unchanged at 120. (lets not start the battle of hot vs cold water temps).
There is definitely something different between M1 and Redline. I attribute the higher temps to more friction in the motor unless someone can prove otherwise. Air temp and water temp were all the same. This was all the proof I needed.
My other passion is high performance offshore boats, mine is powered by a pair of 650HP 522 cu in (.060 over) chevy big blocks. I've always run Redline on a 30 hour (about 1800 mile car equiv) change interval. One weekend I was in a pinch and needed oil for a change. Went down to Wallyworld and got Mobil 1 15w50, I have 14 qt pans on these motors. After the change I took it out for a run, now if you don't know about boats they are propped so at WOT the engine will reach its desired max RPM and not be able to push beyond that, on my motors its 5600 rpm. Basically running the motor at full load all the time. The motors are equipped with 2 pass oil coolers. After a 10 minute WOT blast I noticed that my oil temp was about 15 degrees hotter on both motors (245) than before the change. The following weekend I changed the oil again to put Redline back in, took it for a blast and even at 20 minutes of WOT (5600 rpm) the oil temp never went over 230. Water temp was unchanged at 120. (lets not start the battle of hot vs cold water temps).
There is definitely something different between M1 and Redline. I attribute the higher temps to more friction in the motor unless someone can prove otherwise. Air temp and water temp were all the same. This was all the proof I needed.
11-23-2010, 06:52 PM
#57
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,027
I had a similar experience on my 2003 BMW E39 M5 with the 400HP 4.9 liter V8. The oil spec from BMW for the engine is the owner's choice of either BMW-branded 5w-30 or Castrol TWS Motorsport 10w-60. I tried both. What I saw consistently on track days was that the engine oil temperature was about 15 degrees Celsius cooler with the 5w-30 than it was with the 10w-60. I was surprised at first because the TWS is the "better" oil, but in the end I concluded that lower viscosity = lower pumping losses = lower running temperature. It was all about the viscosity and the quality of the oil didn't enter into it.
What was happening in your boat engine is a mystery. You didn't say what Redline viscosity you use, but I assume it was 15w-50 if you were using M1 15w-50 to replace it. It's hard to believe that the temperature difference was caused by a large viscosity difference between the two oils. If the M1 was thinning out, it should have produced lower running temps, not higher.
Anyway, the Redline is good stuff. It's construction is similar to the Castrol TWS 10w-60 that BMW's "M" and "Motorsport" divisions are so fond of: both products are a PAO/Ester blend built for performance rather than an API spec.
What was happening in your boat engine is a mystery. You didn't say what Redline viscosity you use, but I assume it was 15w-50 if you were using M1 15w-50 to replace it. It's hard to believe that the temperature difference was caused by a large viscosity difference between the two oils. If the M1 was thinning out, it should have produced lower running temps, not higher.
Anyway, the Redline is good stuff. It's construction is similar to the Castrol TWS 10w-60 that BMW's "M" and "Motorsport" divisions are so fond of: both products are a PAO/Ester blend built for performance rather than an API spec.
The only M1 that finds it way into many high performance boat engines is V-twin. The research the boat guys have done on oil is amazing, but when you're spending $50K per engine and many guys are running 3 in one boat you don't chance it.
11-25-2010, 05:26 AM
#58
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 1,465
My challenge for anyone...
Find something....ANYTHING....that proves in an independent test....anywhere in the past 35 years....that discredits AMSOIL's claim about their products.
Good luck! No one, and I mean NO ONE, not any big oil company has ever been able to do it. Not in the 35 years AMSOIL has been formulating engine lubricants.
I'm waiting....
and as a disclaimer about myself. My five year study of lubrication technology, posted UOA results, and a myriad of other tests brought me to AMSOIL, every time. I didn't start using it because someone said it was great, I started using it because every test result and extended drain interval UOA showed me what it could do, and how it was superior.
IMO, the API is a joke. The Europeans spec their oils so much better, they let the manufacturers do it.
I'd take a top tier non API lube any day over an API SM/SN formulation.
Find something....ANYTHING....that proves in an independent test....anywhere in the past 35 years....that discredits AMSOIL's claim about their products.
Good luck! No one, and I mean NO ONE, not any big oil company has ever been able to do it. Not in the 35 years AMSOIL has been formulating engine lubricants.
I'm waiting....
and as a disclaimer about myself. My five year study of lubrication technology, posted UOA results, and a myriad of other tests brought me to AMSOIL, every time. I didn't start using it because someone said it was great, I started using it because every test result and extended drain interval UOA showed me what it could do, and how it was superior.
Originally Posted by JAJ
both products are a PAO/Ester blend built for performance rather than an API spec.
I'd take a top tier non API lube any day over an API SM/SN formulation.
Last edited by Unleashedbeast; 11-25-2010 at 05:33 AM.
11-26-2010, 06:56 PM
#59
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: BC
Posts: 244
Does the OEM-driven approach give rise to "better" oil specs? Not necessarily, just specs that are KNOWN to be adequate for use with the OEM's cars. Think about Ford WSS M2C930A - it's in addition to an API SM license. We know it's not "worse" than API SM, but is it "better"? Probably not, but we have no way to know. Going back to the origin of this thread, RP oil, with Synerlec and ZDDP, isn't labeled for WSS M2C930A. It sure seems to work well, though.
As for Amsoil's marketing, other manufacturers don't challenge it because it's factual. They make good products. But they also make good marketing. Amsoil chooses tests that make their (good) products seem better than their competitor's. For instance, the four-ball test is a grease test and it's brutal. It takes a great product to produce a good result. But, it doesn't really duplicate conditions in an engine, and the results are not necessarily meaningful in choosing engine oil for your daily driver.
Think of it this way - say you have a 50 pound box of books and you need a shelf to store it. You have to choose between two options: One is a welded steel shelf that's independently tested to carry more than 5,000 pounds. The other is wood and it's independently tested to to carry more than 500 pounds. Do the independent tests help you choose your shelf? No. While they're absolutely correct and one product is clearly superior in testing, all the test does is confirm that both shelves are more than good enough.
11-26-2010, 07:10 PM
#60
TECH SAVANT
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
Posts: 10,938
<snip>
Think of it this way - say you have a 50 pound box of books and you need a shelf to store it. You have to choose between two options: One is a welded steel shelf that's independently tested to carry more than 5,000 pounds. The other is wood and it's independently tested to to carry more than 500 pounds. Do the independent tests help you choose your shelf? No. While they're absolutely correct and one product is clearly superior in testing, all the test does is confirm that both shelves are more than good enough.
Think of it this way - say you have a 50 pound box of books and you need a shelf to store it. You have to choose between two options: One is a welded steel shelf that's independently tested to carry more than 5,000 pounds. The other is wood and it's independently tested to to carry more than 500 pounds. Do the independent tests help you choose your shelf? No. While they're absolutely correct and one product is clearly superior in testing, all the test does is confirm that both shelves are more than good enough.
Last edited by cliffyk; 11-26-2010 at 07:32 PM.