Skip to main content

Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity

It looks like the automakers(GM) are going to be leading the way and setting the motor oil standards in the near future,rather than Big oil setting the standard. This is how it's been done in Europe for many years now.

The DEXOS motor oil standard will be superior to the New GF-5 standard making Dexos similar to the European motor oil standards, and it's about time!

http://motoroilbible.com/blog/...exos-motor-oil-spec/

http://www.asashop.org/autoinc/nov2009/cover.htm

http://www.nalube.com/e-newsle...chive/2009/july.html


This is a quote from one of the links that shows how good this new standard will be even over the GF-5 stanard.

<<<<The final Dexos standard has characteristics of a European formulation; improved oil robustness to support extended drain intervals with no improvements to fuel economy. In fact, Dexos requirements will incorporate a number of European performance tests (ACEA) that are not applicable in GF-4 or GF-5 standards. Dexos’ final formulation is considered more robust than GF-4 and new GF-5 standards. This is in contrast to one of the key elements of the proposed GF-5 standard, improved fuel economy. GM called for improvements in oil robustness and extended service intervals to support their vehicle’s Oil Life Monitoring System (OLMS) and to require fewer lifetime service visits. Upon the successful implementation of Dexos, GM will likely recalibrate the algorithm on OLMS to further extend intervals, as was done with the introduction of GF-4.>>>>



Kirk
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The new GF-5 is already looking not to be a very good choice for doing extended oil change intervals which goes against the direction the industry is headed.

The new Dexos is making the GF-5 seem absolete already.....at least in the realm of extended oil change intervals.

...QUOTE....

<<<<<<GM plans to phase out any mention of ILSAC or API specifications in its owners manuals, in order to promote the new dexos specification. A mockup of an owners manual Johnson showed includes the warning: “Failure to use the recommended oil can result in engine damage not covered by the vehicle warranty.”
Impact on the Lube Industry

The initiatives being undertaken by both automakers will have a lasting impact on the fast lube industry. Ford’s reliance on smaller, harder-working turbocharged engines will put even more pressure on motor oil, possibly limiting the ability of even the next-generation GF-5 motor oil to offer oil change intervals that are much extended beyond today’s standards.

GM, meanwhile, will shortly introduce a proprietary (probably synthetic) motor oil that will allow its engines to maximize technologies like displacement on demand and variable valve technology. >>>>>>


Apparently, the automakers have not been very satisfied with the quality of the present day lubes and all the issues it has caused in their engines.

This indicates that the automakers have lost faith and confidence with the API standards set by big oil, and now are going to take matters into their own hands as did the Europeans to finally raise the lube standards where they actually need to be with todays high tech engines.
Last edited by captainkirk
a giant leap from the currently accepted norm, where OEM specs are typically established only for specific vehicles that truly require the additional protection guaranteed by adherence to a more robust OEM specification

So much for the "big oil" theory......

"(ACEA), was founded in 1991 to represent the interests of the 15 European automotive manufacturers."
"The vast majority of motor oils in North America meet or exceed ACEA standards"

"The International Lubricants Standardization and Approval Committee, better known as ILSAC, is a consortium of the automakers - General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC - and the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association"

Ummm, GM is doing this for *all* their engines. Instead of a few. "for all motor oils which are to be used in ANY of their vehicles."

Again, from his own links. And again, so much for "big oil".
quote:
Originally posted by Deltona_Dave:
Trajan,
For what it is worth, most major brand "dino" oils will be able to meet the GF-5 standard. Pennzoil YB is already working on the API SN standard. Not bad for a group II oil.

Dave


That's a bold statement that most major brand dino oils will meet the GF-5 standard.

That sounds like your opinion rather than fact.

For what its worth,the dexos standard will be superior to the GF-5 standard,because dexos will be held to a higher standard similiar to the European standard.

Why use an oil that adheres to a minimum standard rather than a higher standard like dexos,or any high quality present day group iv synthetic oil? With the price to fill up at the pump for fuel....motor oil is cheap.....even synthetic.
Last edited by captainkirk
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
a giant leap from the currently accepted norm, where OEM specs are typically established only for specific vehicles that truly require the additional protection guaranteed by adherence to a more robust OEM specification

So much for the "big oil" theory......

"(ACEA), was founded in 1991 to represent the interests of the 15 European automotive manufacturers."
"The vast majority of motor oils in North America meet or exceed ACEA standards"

"The International Lubricants Standardization and Approval Committee, better known as ILSAC, is a consortium of the automakers - General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC - and the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association"

Ummm, GM is doing this for *all* their engines. Instead of a few. "for all motor oils which are to be used in ANY of their vehicles."

Again, from his own links. And again, so much for "big oil".



WHAT? WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR POINT.......DO YOU HAVE ONE?


My point is that two new lube standards are comming very soon...with dexos being the much better standard,because dexos is more in line with the European standard of which you adhere to yourself with the German castrol synthetic oil you claim to use.
quote:
For what it is worth, most major brand "dino" oils will be able to


QUOTE..

While each company must meet the stringent GF-5 standards, they may take slightly different approaches to meeting the specification in types and amounts of additives and modifiers. One thing is certain: there will be a higher content of additives and synthetic compounds. This will increase oil life, protect the metal and sealing . END QUOTE


Dave,you said most Dino oils will meet the new GF-5 standard yet overlooked the fact that synthetics will have to be added to achieve that standard.


Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by Deltona_Dave:
Trajan,
For what it is worth, most major brand "dino" oils will be able to meet the GF-5 standard. Pennzoil YB is already working on the API SN standard. Not bad for a group II oil.

Dave


Not at all Dave. Not bad at all. Now if only there is an A3/B3 dino.... Smile

Oil formulation has come a long way.
Last edited by trajan
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
Much nonsense....
.


Not my fault you make big oil your personal demon and yet post links that shoot down that theory.


The real demon was all the issues the old lube standards allowed to happen to all those engines....excess wear....sludge....etc.

The reason for the new dexos standard is to avoid any engine damage that stemmed from low quality motor oils.

The fact the automakers are setting new standards of their own like the Europeans...proves they are not happy with the GF-4 or GF-5 standards,and have grown tired waiting for much better oil standards that never seems to arrive,even though the automakers have requested it in the past.

The automakers have done their job building higher tech,cleaner,and more efficient engines as per the EPA,and government. However, big oil has let them down,and now the automakers are finally taking matters into their own hands and getting the lube standards those engines needed all along,following Europes lead from the engine black death years that led to far better oil.

Using your logic,you could assert the automakers are the ones demonizing big oil.....and for good reason!!! Just look at history!! I don't blame the automakers. If I were building high tech engines,I too would demand a certain lube standard,or create my own standards if others couldn't deliver.
This link is further proof of the pressures being put to the automakers to make even higher tech,cleaner running,and more fuel efficient engines.

GF-5 is already obsolete in my opinion and we will need far better motor oil standards to meet these governmental pressures for lower emissions and less greenhouse gases.

Dexos is a step in the right direction,and any premium Group IV/V synthetic already meets or exceeds those standards like I have been saying in all those other threads. Even the group IV synthetics will be improved where and when needed.

These new standards justifies what I have been saying all along!!

Better emission standards must equate to better lube standards to match the higher tech engines,hence the reason for dexos.


http://www.treehugger.com/file...mission-standard.php

Further info showing GF-5 may not be the best standard,and this could be what has led to the dexos standard.

http://www.ford-trucks.com/for...nny-on-gf-5-oil.html
Last edited by captainkirk
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
quote:
For what it is worth, most major brand "dino" oils will be able to


QUOTE..

While each company must meet the stringent GF-5 standards, they may take slightly different approaches to meeting the specification in types and amounts of additives and modifiers. One thing is certain: there will be a higher content of additives and synthetic compounds. This will increase oil life, protect the metal and sealing . END QUOTE


Dave,you said most Dino oils will meet the new GF-5 standard yet overlooked the fact that synthetics will have to be added to achieve that standard.


Kirk


Kirk, explain this then.. PYB already meets/exceeds GF-5 and API SN, although not "officially" certified. Still a conventional oil and not a blend.
Pennzoil Conventional Spec. Sheet

Dave
quote:
Originally posted by Deltona_Dave:
Thanks for the site. My take on GF-5 spec is better protection for Ethanol (E-85) use, seal compatibility, and of course, fuel economy.

Speaking of ethanol, here in Central FL, it is about impossible to find a station that does not have 10% or less ethanol per gallon. Stuff wreaks havoc on OPE carburetor gaskets!

Dave


Hi Dave. My Florida customers complain more about ethanol than anywhere else. Probably because of the high humidity. It is supposed to go to 15% ethanol soon.

This is the product that AMSOIL just released to help deal with ethanol: http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/aqs.aspx?zo=1181889 .

Q&A on this product at: https://www.amsoil.com/dealer/...e_AQS.pdf?zo=1181889 .

Power Point presentation at https://admin.acrobat.com/_a72...t=true&pbMode=normal .
Valero is not real popular here. I usually use Chevron or Texaco. I get about 30-40 more miles per tankful than discount stations. Probably due to less ethanol, but about 2-3 cents higher per gal. At least my Titan is Flex-Fuel. Altima is not.

I might try the Amsoil Powershot for my OPE. I use Saber Pro for my 2 cycle mix.

I think the GF-5 is a step up, at least to keep internals from rusting/corroding from the corn liquor.

I did read that some testing has changed for the GF-5 certifications... Confused Anyone enlighten me? Something to do with the high temp wear protection..

Thanks,
Dave
I guess they kept the same high temp testing for GF-5. Some older posts on various boards (late 08 early 09), mentioned that the high temp testing was going to be different.

I might try some TC-W3 in the tank and see how it goes. Titan out of warranty anyways. I might use some old 2-stroke gas/oil mix that I have sitting around from last year. I will put in a gallon of that stuff first (my tank is almost 30 gal).

dave
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
The thing about the TC is that it's ashless, which makes it catalytic converter friendly.

And cost/benefit wise, you can't beat it.

30 gal tank... Ouch. Especially if it's premium.

And, going back to Briggs and Stratton:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2...motive-atrocities/3/


Titan takes Regular 87, thank goodness. Love the Briggs ride, turn of the century go-kart!

Dave
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
The thing about the TC is that it's ashless, which makes it catalytic converter friendly.

And cost/benefit wise, you can't beat it.

30 gal tank... Ouch. Especially if it's premium.

And, going back to Briggs and Stratton:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2...motive-atrocities/3/


I have been using various fuel lube products such as,MMO,redline,lucas UCL,and even the amsoil 100:1 saber(500:1 in car).

Lately, I have been using the lucas UCL at roughly 5.25 ounces to 25 gallons of fuel. Seems to be the cheapest way to go. They sell the stuff by the gallon on Amazon with free shipping for about $25. In the past, the lucas quieted down a noisey fuel pump in my last car.
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
Yeah, well, we're more interested in the question above.
To wit: Kirk, explain this then.. PYB already meets/exceeds GF-5 and API SN, although not "officially" certified. Still a conventional oil and not a blend. http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/...601_201003012040.pdf

$25/gal for Lucas vs $11/gal for Super Tech TC-W3 which works just as well....


I read the shell link and noted the Noack volality of almost 15%. Would you put that stuff in you Beamer at 15% volatility? Also,how robust is the oil at wear protection? My guess,not nearly as good as dexos or other group IV oils.

The dexos will have a much lower Noack Volatily than 15%.

Quote
The enhanced robustness of Dexos is categorized by improved low temperature pumpability, reduced volatility limits, tightened limits on weighted piston deposit tests and more aggressive sludge performance. These performance characteristics will require a formulation with additional detergents, dispersants and ashless oxidation inhibitors. Improvements in low temperature performance, volatility and piston deposit control will dictate a base oil mix of predominately Group III synthetic base stocks.


What standard do you want in your engine???

What oil do you already pour into your engine to date.
The 2 areas of improvement for GF-5/SN are 1. fuel economy 2. high temperature deposit protetion (TEOST).

Most of your top tier synthetics will already meet the GF-5/SN spec, but they are testing them for fuel economy improvements. I asked Amsoil recently about GF-5 and they said they are field testing their formulations due out this fall. It's been shown in some studies that friction modification wears out after 5-7k miles of use.

There have been no concerns among most automakers with GF-4 oils and wear control. This is why the Seq IVA stayed the same. The Seq IIIG, which Pennzoil is using to advertise Ultra, I believe stayed the same as well.

Engines are lasting longer then they ever have, most of which use the current API GF-4 specification. No one said the API specification is the end all of specs, but it does ensure consistent quality or at least represents a quality level.

Honda & Toyota are moving to 10k mile drain intervals with many of their new cars, using nothing but conventional/syn blend oils.

dexos1 is supposedly somewhere in between GF-5/SN and Mobil 1 in terms of quality level.

Amsoil does deserve a lot of credit for pushing extended drain intervals. They have been promoting ext. drains since 1974. The industry is finally moving in that direction.
quote:

Skip Navigation LinksHome : Information Centre : Crankcase Specifications Development : ILSAC GF-5 Knowledge Hub : Infineum Perspective
A
A
A
Infineum Perspective

GENERAL
INFINEUM ENDORSES SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
ITEMS REQUIRING FURTHER DISCUSSION
WHERE WE ARE TODAY

Infineum believes that the new category will represent a significant improvement over ILSAC GF-4 engine oils. This should be verified by introducing a Sequence VID SAE 5W-20 passing reference oil as well as an ILSAC GF-5 category demonstration oil. In addition to confirming the viability of the new category, such reference oils allow all stakeholders to recognise when issues develop due to changes in hardware and fuel over the life of the engine tests. Update #9, December 2009

Major oil marketers and OEM representative share timing for use of GEOS A (2011 MY vehicles) and its impact on the marketplace vs. ILSAC GF-5 Update #6, June 2009

Infineum View on Timing for September 2010 Launch (PDF 25 kB) Update #4, January 2009

Matt Snider, Project Engineer Fuels and Lubricants at General Motors Corporation, gives us his viewpoints on the needs for global engine oils and for GF-5, as well as GMs recently announced global GEOS A and B lubricant specifications.

Fran Lockwood of Ashland Consumer Markets shares her opinion of how GF-4 fluids are performing and offers her assessment of meeting future needs.
GENERAL

We support ILSAC GF-5 and its ability to improve fuel economy and emissions systems compatibility. However, we question the need to upgrade ILSAC GF-5 to further improve engine protection until such time as there are data to show an upgrade is needed. Internal Infineum data reveal that ILSAC GF-4 oils are doing an outstanding job of protecting today’s engines and the vast majority of engines for the foreseeable future.
INFINEUM ENDORSES SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES

* We support working cooperatively with OEMs to develop oils that meet the needs of new engine technologies, including development of appropriate tests that will ensure engine protection.

+ As new hardware is introduced, and if ILSAC GF-5 oils are deemed not adequate for those specific engines, the issue can be addressed in a timely manner via additional OEM specifications.

+ There may also be potential for a future category as use of new engine technology becomes more widespread. This is consistent with today's approach where ILSAC GF-4 is not specified for 100% of the North America fleet.

* We support improved Fuel Economy from the Sequence VID Consortium work provided that test shows acceptable discrimination and precision.

* We support improved emissions system compatibility from ESCIT work, retaining 0.08 wt% Phosphorus (P) max / 0.06 wt% P min, and 0.5 wt % Sulphur max.

* We support oils that should be compatible with E-85 fuel (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline)

* We support industry’s efforts to maintain and extend the life of existing engine tests that have provided tools for industry to develop oils that do an outstanding job in protecting today’s engines.



ITEMS REQUIRING FURTHER DISCUSSION

* ILSAC GF-4 is a robust category and as such, performance limits for current tests should be retained unless clear deficiencies can be demonstrated. Directional improvements in sludge and deposit protection are also in conflict with OEMs desire to improve Fuel Economy.

* We do not believe SIDI (Spark Ignition Direct Injection) or turbocharger protection should be included in ILSAC GF-5 because requirements are not well understood. Many turbocharged engines appear to receive adequate protection from ILSAC GF-4 oils today; the few that do not are appropriately addressed by OEM specifications.

* Although it is a marketer and OEM issue, we believe that the SAE 10W-30 should not be included as an ILSAC GF-5 viscosity grade as very few engines today or in the future will require it. The few engines that might can be attended to via OEM specifications.

Infineum research also indicates that almost all OEMs do not specify SAE 10W-30 now. In fact, some will not have specified this grade in more than 10 years by the time ILSAC GF-5 oils are introduced. Marketers and oil change facilities are doing a good job using the right oils, which can be seen by the growth of SAE 5W-20 and 5W-30 oils and the decline in SAE 10W-30 oils.

+ We believe that inclusion of a Starburst on this oil misleads consumers into using a viscosity grade that will not provide the same level of Fuel Economy as an SAE 0W-20, 0W-30, 5W-20 or 5W-30.

* Infineum supports the use of OEM specifications to address and incorporate specific engine builder needs in a timely fashion. These OEM specifications should build on an industry specification such as ILSAC GF-5 that is responsive to the needs of a majority of the vehicles on the road today and in the near future.

Why Infineum no longer supports SAE 10W-30 [PPT 212Kb]
Where we are today

Infineum agrees that the new Sequence VID test is an adequate replacement for the Sequence VIB using modern engine technology. We are disappointed, however, that the Sequence VID still shows significant differences among the various test laboratories, and test results still appear highly dependent on the age of the engine. Industry has made good efforts to get this test ready for the new category. What has made this task so difficult is the great job that OEMs have already done to take friction out of the engine.

Infineum has considerable concern over the ability of the Sequence VID to show differences among ILSAC GF-4 and ILSAC GF-5 engine oils. We also are quite uneasy about Industry’s ability to provide a true 0.5% fuel economy improvement in ILSAC GF-5 oils over ILSAC GF-4 oils as requested in the draft ILSAC GF-5 specification. The oil selected by ILSAC as the ILSAC GF-5 capable candidate for the Sequence VID precision matrix has not even come close to passing the Sequence VID limits proposed by ILSAC at the May 12, 2009 ILSAC/Oil meeting. In fact, with regard to retained fuel economy, the ILSAC GF-4 oils included in the precision matrix proved to be better than the ILSAC GF-5 capable candidate oil included in the matrix.

Another key issue is the ability of the Sequence VID to show statistically significant differences either among SAE 0W-20 and 5W-20 oils or among SAE 0W-30 and 5W-30 oils – or even SAE 10W-30 for that matter. Infineum has observed that the test is highly correlated to high temperature high sheer (HTHS) viscosity, and it does not appear to be capable of showing SAE 0W multigrade oils to be better in fuel economy versus SAE 5W multigrade oils. This does not mean that in the real world SAE 0W-20 oils will not provide improved fuel economy compared with SAE 5W-20 oils, but only that the Sequence VID cannot see a statistically significant difference between these two viscosity grades.

Based on our understanding of the test, we believe there should be only two limits – one for XW-20s and a second for XW-30s – and that

* Industry must also produce demonstration oils (one for each viscosity grade or set of viscosity grades) that can achieve whatever limits become the ILSAC GF-5 standard.
* There is a reference oil capable of passing the Sequence VID, as well as all other tests at the limits agreed to be included in ILSAC GF-5.
* The reference oil results are repeatable and reproducible among different engine test labs.

Another major issue concerns Sequence IIIG WPD (Weighted Piston Deposits). We strongly believe that the current limit provides adequate protection for the vast majority of vehicles on the road. Raising the WPD limit restricts improvements in fuel economy that ILSAC GF-5 oils can achieve. We are also troubled that the Sequence IIIG test continues to be severe and variable in its ability to measure improvements in this parameter. Raising the WPD limit will likely add significant cost without providing significant benefits to end users.

We think that it is time for ILSAC to drop the requirement for the TEOST 33C bench test. Data showing that this test improves turbocharger protection have not been provided to date. We also know that the test has discriminated against certain chemistries that give important benefits for some OEMs. Therefore, test use should be limited to those OEMs that believe it affords a benefit for their engines/turbochargers, and requirements should be provided through the use of OEM specifications.

Infineum is pleased with the progress made with the legacy engine tests to ensure that they can be utilized to define performance requirements of ILSAC GF-5 engine oils. Concerns over the new Sequence VG fuel batch appear to be manageable but only time and experience will confirm this supposition.

Although we fully endorse the new E85 compatibility test, we also feel Industry must ensure that the procedure is adequate and the limits of the test are realistic.

Finally, it is our belief that the technology demonstration period cannot start until Industry agrees on a realistic and achievable starting date, which ensures that all the key tests are final or at least close to being finalized. This includes establishing reasonable targets for the Sequence VID, and also confirming that key bench tests such as the E85 compatibility test and the ROBO test are finalized.


To play it safe, it's important to stick with licensed oils IMO. It's not that small blenders are not capable of making superior oils, but rather not knowing what you are truly getting in the bottle. I have faith in companies like Amsoil, who have been making syn oils for a long time. Some of the really small brands, I am often a bit skeptical of. I'd like to know the oil I am using passed all of the testing required, some of which is rather demanding.
quote:
Originally posted by Buster:
http://www.infineum.com/siteco...ooks/gf5/video4.html

Fran Lockwood on GF-4. "No issues with oil robustness.".

Kirk stop spreading false, exaggerated information. LOL


He can't help it Smile

"To play it safe, it's important to stick with licensed oils IMO"

I agree. Which leaves out swill such as synlube. Going by the testing of bruce381, you really don't know what you will get with that stuff. (A 5w-50 claim that tested at 30 and a 40...)

And Amsoil is API certed.
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
Yeah, well, we're more interested in the question above.
To wit: Kirk, explain this then.. PYB already meets/exceeds GF-5 and API SN, although not "officially" certified. Still a conventional oil and not a blend. http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/...601_201003012040.pdf

$25/gal for Lucas vs $11/gal for Super Tech TC-W3 which works just as well....


I read the shell link and noted the Noack volality of almost 15%. Would you put that stuff in you Beamer at 15% volatility? Also,how robust is the oil at wear protection? My guess,not nearly as good as dexos or other group IV oils.

The dexos will have a much lower Noack Volatily than 15%.

Quote
The enhanced robustness of Dexos is categorized by improved low temperature pumpability, reduced volatility limits, tightened limits on weighted piston deposit tests and more aggressive sludge performance. These performance characteristics will require a formulation with additional detergents, dispersants and ashless oxidation inhibitors. Improvements in low temperature performance, volatility and piston deposit control will dictate a base oil mix of predominately Group III synthetic base stocks.


What standard do you want in your engine???

What oil do you already pour into your engine to date.


The NOACK volatility is on par for most major brands of CONVENTIONAL oil. PQI Test Results

I have no problem with that. If it was a GRP III or IV synthetic, then there would be a problem.

Here is a listing of "Private Label" conventionals. Private Label

SuperTech does not look too bad. Some, I would not use in my lawn mower..

Dave
quote:
Originally posted by Deltona_Dave:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
Yeah, well, we're more interested in the question above.
To wit: Kirk, explain this then.. PYB already meets/exceeds GF-5 and API SN, although not "officially" certified. Still a conventional oil and not a blend. http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/...601_201003012040.pdf

$25/gal for Lucas vs $11/gal for Super Tech TC-W3 which works just as well....


I read the shell link and noted the Noack volality of almost 15%. Would you put that stuff in you Beamer at 15% volatility? Also,how robust is the oil at wear protection? My guess,not nearly as good as dexos or other group IV oils.

The dexos will have a much lower Noack Volatily than 15%.

Quote
The enhanced robustness of Dexos is categorized by improved low temperature pumpability, reduced volatility limits, tightened limits on weighted piston deposit tests and more aggressive sludge performance. These performance characteristics will require a formulation with additional detergents, dispersants and ashless oxidation inhibitors. Improvements in low temperature performance, volatility and piston deposit control will dictate a base oil mix of predominately Group III synthetic base stocks.


What standard do you want in your engine???

What oil do you already pour into your engine to date.


Kirk, I guess you are trying to compare apples to oranges. I was stating that conventional oils can meet the GF-5 standard w/o any synthetic base stock.
quote:
"Dave,you said most Dino oils will meet the new GF-5 standard yet overlooked the fact that synthetics will have to be added to achieve that standard."
Because you stated earlier that a more robust additive pack or synthetic blend would be needed. Try reading the full paragraph that I wrote, before jumping to conclusions. Of course a conventional oil is going to have a higher NOACK volatility than a Grp IV or III oil. Two totally different animals.

The NOACK volatility is on par for most major brands of CONVENTIONAL oil. PQI Test Results

I have no problem with that. If it was a GRP III or IV synthetic, then there would be a problem.

Here is a listing of "Private Label" conventionals. Private Label

SuperTech does not look too bad. Some, I would not use in my lawn mower..

Dave
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
Yeah, well, we're more interested in the question above.
To wit: Kirk, explain this then.. PYB already meets/exceeds GF-5 and API SN, although not "officially" certified. Still a conventional oil and not a blend. http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/...601_201003012040.pdf

$25/gal for Lucas vs $11/gal for Super Tech TC-W3 which works just as well....


I read the shell link and noted the Noack volality of almost 15%. Would you put that stuff in you Beamer at 15% volatility? Also,how robust is the oil at wear protection? My guess,not nearly as good as dexos or other group IV oils.

The dexos will have a much lower Noack Volatily than 15%.

Quote
The enhanced robustness of Dexos is categorized by improved low temperature pumpability, reduced volatility limits, tightened limits on weighted piston deposit tests and more aggressive sludge performance. These performance characteristics will require a formulation with additional detergents, dispersants and ashless oxidation inhibitors. Improvements in low temperature performance, volatility and piston deposit control will dictate a base oil mix of predominately Group III synthetic base stocks.


What standard do you want in your engine???

What oil do you already pour into your engine to date.


The oil meets GF-5. Despite what you claim, it's a conventional oil. The question was can you explain it?

That is the question. Not what I put in the Z4. Especially as I've made that plain. More than once

But, I'll say it again.

ACEA A3/B3. LL-01 if I can get it. And I can. But it *has* to be A3/B3. Not meets or exceeds. It *has* to have the ACEA mark. I'm anal that way. Maybe I'll try the Amsoil Euro. Maybe.

I've used BMW 5w-30, GC 0w-30, Castrol 5w-40, (LL-98 but still A3/B3), and M1 0w-40. Three of them are on the current BMWNA approved oil list.

I trust I won't have to repeat that.

See, I use API/ACEA rated oil. I use quality filters. I don't exceed mfg OCIs.
Last edited by trajan
quote:
See, I use API/ACEA rated oil. I use quality filters. I don't exceed mfg OCI


Same here Trajan. Both my Nissan's spec API/SL-SM and recommend mineral based oil. OCI 3750 Severe or 7500 Normal conditions. I meet in the middle and go 5000 on both vehicles. I am running Penz. Platinum Grp III right now (got it for a good price), but will start using PYB. Reason: Price. I am quite comfortable using a quality, name brand oil that meets the automaker's specs. I can get 12qts PYB for about the same cost as 5qt jug of platinum. I use quality filters too.

Dave
Maybe I've missed it, but do you guys know that there will be 2 different types of Dexos?

Dexos1 for America with emphasis on fuel economy and Dexos2 for Europe with higher limits on SAP levels. US will also get Dexos2, however Europe does not need the Dexos1 as it looks for now.
Dexos1 needs to fulfill the ILSAC norms and Dexos2 needs to fulfill ACEA C3-07. Basically Dexos2 is more or less designed for Diesel engines AND spark ignited engines, where Dexos1 is only for spark ignited engines.

Backwards compatibility:
“dexos1™ replaces GM-LL-A-025, GM6094M and GM4718M.”

“dexos2™ replaces GM-LL-B-025 and GM-LL-A-025.”

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×