359.5432 milligrams is 0.0127 ounce by weight.   Seems sorta short and light, don't it ??   Plus, it is a weight --- not a measured liquid volume of Redline booster.

Somethings still missing, I think.  My brain, certainly, but some math something or other isn't clicking for this yet.


=============================

There are 33.8 grams of zddp in a 16 ounce bottle of redline, that's 33800 milligrams per 16 oz or 33800/16 = 2112.5 milligrams ZDDP per ounce.    If we only need to be adding 359.5 milligrams of ZDDP to get it right, then that is only 0.170 liquid ounces of Redline.  

Ouch, my calculator is acting wonky again ---- it bit me.

=============================


So, have you looked at the guts of Boule's spreadsheet yet?

Just so they wind up in liquid ounce type measures you can measure with a Pepto Bismol quarter ounce graduated cup, then all will be well ......

Here's a link to a table I made. Let me know if anything needs to be changed or modified. The labels should be self-explanatory.


http://www.filedropper.com/redlineboostertable

Yup, but the Boule table lines up with the general recommendations from the Redline folks, adjusted for the higher PPM in the base oil that we like to use.

They say 16 oz of Redline can treat up to 12 quarts of oil (3/4 oz per quart) and our bike holds two quarts so that would be 1.5 oz of Redline to do a Savage sump using the very vague Redline instructions.

Going to the Boule table (after being adjusted for the 1100 ppm in Rot T dino) says the same thing, dropping you in right up at the max end of our 1383-1402 ppm desired spec range.

Boule had to contact the Redline folks and ask them how they got there and they gave him the specific gravity calculation math that you see in the table (hidden inside the spreadsheet) and provided the constants for Redline booster and motor oil.

Fl.Oz.    ppm for Redline            ppm if adding ZDDPlus or Eastwood ZDDP Booster

0.000      1100                                1100
.........      ........                                ........
0.125      1171                                1220
0.250      1190                                1289
0.375      1209                                1358
0.500      1229                                1426
0.625      1248                                1495
0.750      1267                                1563
0.875      1287                                1531
1.000      1306                                1699
1.125      1325                                1767
1.250      1344                                1835
1.375      1363                              
1.500      1383                          
1.625      1402    


Me, I regularly used to do an ounce per sump and it is maybe a little bit wimpy now, maybe.   I might have to do an ounce and a half now days since the oil got wimpy on us.   I shoot for 1400 as a minimum as that is as light a dose as was ever used in performance cam land .....

When I was first breaking in my cam, it was THREE ounces per sump as the cam guys insisted on getting 1800 ppm at a minimum during the first 500 miles, or else no warranty.

But remember, I have a revver engine and I do run it up until the valves float fairly often on them zippy mountain trips.   1400 makes me feel cuddly enough.

If your goal is only 1200-1250 ppm I think a half ounce per sump would do it, or an ounce per gallon jug if you wanted to do a pre-mix.

But those that mix higher use more.


============================


If you are really being consumed by the question -- do your mix according to your method and send it off to Blackstone Labs for a VOA analysis.

And remember on that VOA, Redline puts back in the sulfur content that was needed by the hot cam cars, back before EPA got their fingers into the pie.

OF if you meant this link
http://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/FusionPDS.nsf/Files/A9EED664E7A92C4E80257EC...
I read it, it's worthless, tells you nothing about the oil, might as well be ad copy
You made a point to point out the 'sludge resistant' part, so? castrol has been 'sludge resistant' as long as it's been made
again, it's being used successfully in wet clutch engines, so that's not an issue
the issue is the ZDDP
But are we sure it's the real issue?
I get what Dave said about higher spring pressures, but there's a saying in scientific circles
Correlation doesn't equal causation
so the simple fact that Savages and other vintage vehicles run without ZDDP have had valve failures doesn't prove the lack of ZDDP is the cause of said failure
So, how are we sure the issue is ZDDP?
has anyone done actual research into it?
I am sticking with Rotella, never fear that, I've been using it with great success in motos since I first heard of it many moons ago
It just brings the question up
do we have ant actual data that proves the ZDDP is the saving grace, here?

Art,

http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-1990/

There are lots and lots of information about ZDDP from tons of sources, but SAE is pretty much the defining resource.   Historically, ZDDP is the MOST EFFECTIVE anti-wear ingredient ever found.

If you read this, understand they are talking about 2007's improvement in the chemically combined NON_VOLATILE phosphorous in modern zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP)  not getting into the grain boundaries of steels and not getting loose to kill catalytic converters and oxygen sensors like the old ZDP did.  

ZDDP was a 2x improvement over ZDP (yup, SAE says so).

Still ZDDP was eventually found do long term bad things to decrease the service life of the cats and the sensors, so that is why ZDDP was phased out of the oils by SAE (and the roller cams and such were phased into cars because of the lowered levels of ZDDP adopted at the SAE SL oil spec change made them necessary).

Ooops ..... you sorta forgot our 1987 designed Savages there, buddy.

"Too much" was in reference to ZDP and we don't use that stuff in anything any more.

We now use ZDDP (zinc dialkyldithiophosphate = ZDDP) which chemically combines that evil phosphorous so it isn't running loose to attack grain boundaries.

And if you look at the amounts, the phosphorous is always less than the zinc because that is the way the molecule is built.

And if the old ZDP loose phosphorous available in the powder mix had to get all the way up to 2000 ppm, we don't ever get that high these days anyway and our phosphorous isn't loose anyway, it is locked into the zinc in a dialkyldithiophosphate molecule.

Read the SAE reference I gave to ART, it goes into it in more detail.

http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-1990/

If you are still worried about it, pour in half from the old mixed bottle and half from the virgin bottle into the sump of your bike at next oil change, making a mix that is what you are going to go to next anyway.  

Using a quart of each, you will have enough to do you two sump loads in that fashion.

Me, I'm going to stick with 2 ounces per gallon jug, or one ounce per sump.   That's around 1459 ppm which is up a bit initially, but is OK to me as when I go to add some oil later due to use it will come on down accordingly.  

Remember, I don't premix my jugs, I dope the sump loads separately as I like to KNOW it is all ratio'd out correctly at the time the sump gets hot that first time.

The thought of all the goodie being settled to the bottom of the jug after a year of sitting, well that doesn't sit well with me.


     

I haven't read this whole post ,but if you don't mind I want to ask,
I add 1 fluid oz of redline to 2 1/2 quarts of rotella T6 at my oil change.Is there a problem with that? Seems to run good.