It's finally here- updated GM4718M w/ GM6094M list

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
It's finally here- updated GM4718M w/ GM6094M list

Quote:
GM could deny your warrenty clam for using....

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: mpersell
I guess you can spend your money on buying better ingredients or buying certifications. In my prior profession the more certifications a guy had usually the less field common sense he had.


Yes, but financially, these boutique companies are not in the same position as Exxon-Mobil. This is a company who not only SUPPLIES both Group IV and Group V chemicals, but of course has the luxury of USING those chemicals in it's own products and easily affording to be tested and certified for everything under the bloody sun.

I would not be surprised is Exxon-Mobil's certification budget for a single grade of oil is more than many of the small blender's budget's for their R&D. Doesn't make it a better product of course, but should add a bit of perspective when comparing products from companies with the range of resources; both financially and physically, of those in question.

 

[Gary Allan]

yes ..they have a very big home court advantage as a primary producer/supplier

 

[kingrob]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
It's finally here- updated GM4718M w/ GM6094M list

What, no Wolf's Head?

 

[Gary Allan]

I just got such a spike vision when I saw the thread title. BITOG'S version of "The new phone book is here! The new phone book is here!!"

This must look very strange for someone who just stumbles onto the site ..not prepared for what's inside.

 

[Roger]

Forgive me for asking, I'm sure its been explained before, but what is it that is special about the GM4718M spec?

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Roger
Forgive me for asking, I'm sure its been explained before, but what is it that is special about the GM4718M spec?

Pretty much high heat protection.

 

[FrankN4]

GM 4718 is pretty much high heat and low deposits.

"If Valvoline Synpower or Castrol Syntec meet or exceed the specification standards they can be used and GM can NOT void your warranty just because they are not certified and not on the list. Under the law GM can not force you to use a certified fluid. All they can do is require you to use a fluid that meets or exceeds the standard in question."

The above is 100% true. However...I am blessed(?) with three attorneys, one judge, and one criminologist in my family. We talked about this issue a few months ago. They agreed I would most likely win such a case, but it was by no means an open and shut case. They also agreed that if the auto manufacturer had an attorney that had been out of law school for more that a week, he could easily keep it tied up for 2 to 3 years and it would probably cost me a low of around $12,000 to the vicinity of $30,000. The judge said that as the plaintiff the burden of proof would be entirely upon me and that would require a testing procedure that satisfied the court. And..there is always the quality of your attorney vs the quality of the manufacturers attorney, the mood/mindset/attitude of the judge, weather, moon phase, whether the trout are taking dries or nymphs......

I have been driving for 48 years and have had new cars since 1964. To the best of my knowledge, I have never used the oil recommended by the manufacturer. I have never had a lubrication problem. 200,000 is probably a norm for me. Water pumps, alternators, AC compressors, and such. I have had company owned and issued cars that suffered from lubrication problems and they always used an API certified, manufacturer recommended viscosity grade, manufacturer recommended OCI. .....SO.....

 

[MatchboxCar]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Unless the engine oil is way out of whack, it is almost impossible to find out what oil is in the crank case after running it for a while.


That is just not true.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: MatchboxCar
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Unless the engine oil is way out of whack, it is almost impossible to find out what oil is in the crank case after running it for a while.


That is just not true.


Maybe we should start a BITOG "Pepsi" test contest for blind UOA to see who could guess it right.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: FrankN4
GM 4718 is pretty much high heat and low deposits.

"If Valvoline Synpower or Castrol Syntec meet or exceed the specification standards they can be used and GM can NOT void your warranty just because they are not certified and not on the list. Under the law GM can not force you to use a certified fluid. All they can do is require you to use a fluid that meets or exceeds the standard in question."

The above is 100% true. However...I am blessed(?) with three attorneys, one judge, and one criminologist in my family. We talked about this issue a few months ago. They agreed I would most likely win such a case, but it was by no means an open and shut case. They also agreed that if the auto manufacturer had an attorney that had been out of law school for more that a week, he could easily keep it tied up for 2 to 3 years and it would probably cost me a low of around $12,000 to the vicinity of $30,000. The judge said that as the plaintiff the burden of proof would be entirely upon me and that would require a testing procedure that satisfied the court. And..there is always the quality of your attorney vs the quality of the manufacturers attorney, the mood/mindset/attitude of the judge, weather, moon phase, whether the trout are taking dries or nymphs......

I have been driving for 48 years and have had new cars since 1964. To the best of my knowledge, I have never used the oil recommended by the manufacturer. I have never had a lubrication problem. 200,000 is probably a norm for me. Water pumps, alternators, AC compressors, and such. I have had company owned and issued cars that suffered from lubrication problems and they always used an API certified, manufacturer recommended viscosity grade, manufacturer recommended OCI. .....SO.....


My issue with that kind of logic/argument is that law is very clear in that the car mfg has the bigger burden of proof here vs the consumer. The car mfg must prove under the Magnuson Moss act that the oil caused the failure. Also keep in mind GM only says you must use an oil that "meets" standard XXXX NOT that you use a "certified" oil.

There is some burden of proof on the consumer but IMO more on the auto mfg. Not a lot of ways to tie it up in court. Either the oil meets the standard or it doesn't. You get a copy of the standard, find out how the oil you used tested vs the standard, and then there you go. It either meets/exceeds it or it doesn't. As long as it meets or exceeds the standard the consumer is fine.

GM, or any car mfg for that matter, can not force the consumer under the law to use a "certified" fluid. They can only provide standards and ratings that the fluids must meet or exceed. When car mfg's start requiring specific things such as only their oil can be used to protect the warranty then under the law they must provide it free of charge.

I am not a lawayer nor a judge but I have worked in the auto industry and specifically in dealer service and I am am very familiar with warranty proceedures as well as the MM law.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
NHSilverado - You said this;
"GM, or any car mfg for that matter, can not force the consumer under the law to use a "certified" fluid. They can only provide standards and ratings that the fluids must meet or exceed. When car mfg's start requiring specific things such as only their oil can be used to protect the warranty then under the law they must provide it free of charge"

This is an interesting generalisation and of course applies to the US. This Board is an International one and other rules may apply elsewhere - even when using US built engines/vehicles in another Country

As well, try telling any US (and Euro) high speed heavy diesel engine makers selling engines here in Australia of this. Under extended Warranty provisions - the bulk of heavy diesels are sold this way - it is a case of "use an Approved lubricant or the Warranty is voided"

I have watched this played out over many many years!

In purchasing my last Porsche they also spelled this out very clearly - and MB do too!

 

[cheetahdriver]

Originally Posted By: NHSilverado

My issue with that kind of logic/argument is that law is very clear in that the car mfg has the bigger burden of proof here vs the consumer. The car mfg must prove under the Magnuson Moss act that the oil caused the failure. Also keep in mind GM only says you must use an oil that "meets" standard XXXX NOT that you use a "certified" oil.

There is some burden of proof on the consumer but IMO more on the auto mfg. Not a lot of ways to tie it up in court. Either the oil meets the standard or it doesn't. You get a copy of the standard, find out how the oil you used tested vs the standard, and then there you go. It either meets/exceeds it or it doesn't. As long as it meets or exceeds the standard the consumer is fine.

GM, or any car mfg for that matter, can not force the consumer under the law to use a "certified" fluid. They can only provide standards and ratings that the fluids must meet or exceed. When car mfg's start requiring specific things such as only their oil can be used to protect the warranty then under the law they must provide it free of charge.

I am not a lawayer nor a judge but I have worked in the auto industry and specifically in dealer service and I am am very familiar with warranty proceedures as well as the MM law.


i think the kicker here (putting on flameproof suit)and the reason why many of the boutique companies refuse to do the testing is that it limits you on your ability to respond to "deals" in the marketplace. for instance, lets say you are a high priced, low volume blender, with a small but loyal following. you are currently using brandX base oil, but they get hit by a hurricane, so you now find that brandY is cheaper. if you are certified, this means you have to go through the testing AGAIN, to prove that your new blend is just as good as the old stuff. if you "meet or exceed", you get a free pass, no matter what the characteristics of the resultant oil is....

i am sure that part of the case would be "how do you know the oil you sent to the lab is the same oil that you put in the engine?"

 

[buster]

JUST USE AN APPROVED OIL AND BE DONE WITH IT! LOL

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
This is an interesting generalisation and of course applies to the US. This Board is an International one and other rules may apply elsewhere - even when using US built engines/vehicles in another Country

As well, try telling any US (and Euro) high speed heavy diesel engine makers selling engines here in Australia of this. Under extended Warranty provisions - the bulk of heavy diesels are sold this way - it is a case of "use an Approved lubricant or the Warranty is voided"

I have watched this played out over many many years!

In purchasing my last Porsche they also spelled this out very clearly - and MB do too!



Well, Doug, I think that your commercial service is very much like stationary service. That is, the purchase of the engine is senseless unless you're subjecting it to the service that the spec'd lube is designed to cope with. Anything less would just be foolish. Hence it's down to conventional or synthetic. No other way to turn in most cases.

Passenger cars surely fall out of this sphere of assured needs. There you've got more time weighted averages that penetrate various levels of service. Hence we have 5w-30 oils ..with no particular exclusive nature to them.. spec'd for the same gas engine that pulls a travel trailer up 6% grades as it is for the sedan that never peaks 100C in oil temp. They just alter the time in service ..something that your commercial service is very sensitive to in terms of costs.

Most of the lube related issues with our Euro's were due to almost exclusive distribution of oil from the dealer. After the big VW/AUDI litigation ..an incredible number of VW 500.x oils came on the market (fill in your Euro spec of choice here MB 229.xxxxx etc.)

You want to sell the the huge American automobile market ..you've got to think things through a bit.

 

[Challenger71]

Ok Panda, you just volunteered. First up, taste test!

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: MatchboxCar
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Unless the engine oil is way out of whack, it is almost impossible to find out what oil is in the crank case after running it for a while.


That is just not true.


Maybe we should start a BITOG "Pepsi" test contest for blind UOA to see who could guess it right.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
NHSilverado - You said this;
"GM, or any car mfg for that matter, can not force the consumer under the law to use a "certified" fluid. They can only provide standards and ratings that the fluids must meet or exceed. When car mfg's start requiring specific things such as only their oil can be used to protect the warranty then under the law they must provide it free of charge"

This is an interesting generalisation and of course applies to the US. This Board is an International one and other rules may apply elsewhere - even when using US built engines/vehicles in another Country

As well, try telling any US (and Euro) high speed heavy diesel engine makers selling engines here in Australia of this. Under extended Warranty provisions - the bulk of heavy diesels are sold this way - it is a case of "use an Approved lubricant or the Warranty is voided"

I have watched this played out over many many years!

In purchasing my last Porsche they also spelled this out very clearly - and MB do too!



My comments are USA based yes.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver


i am sure that part of the case would be "how do you know the oil you sent to the lab is the same oil that you put in the engine?"


I think I would know that the oil I sent to the lab is the same oil I put in/came out of my car?

I think I know what you meant though. That same logic however applies to any oil that actually is certified. How does the consumer know the oil they are buying that claims certification is the same formula the oil mfg got certified? Look at Castrol GTX and GM6094M. Not too long back it lost it's certification because the formula changed or something and it no longer met the oil standard it was "already" certified as meeting.

In a random test it was found to no longer meet the standard so they lost certification. The bottles still claimed GM6094M certification however so unless you were an oil junkie like those on this site how would the average person know this? So you have a fluid on the mfg's certified list that so many on here claim are the only oils you should use and that are the only "safe bet", showing the standard on the bottle as well when purchased, but in actuallity the oil does NOT meet the standard.

So you can use an oil on the list and actually use the wrong thing whereas you can pick up a quality oil that was not certified but that actually does meet the standard. I would bet a lot of cash the GTX/GM6094M issue was not the 1st time it happened. You never know if the bottle you buy is the same as the oil used to provide the test results be it a certified oil or not.

Those certified lists are extremely overrated. They certainly are not a 100% guarantee the oil meets the standard. Really what they are is a way for the car mfg to make a lot of money. As another poster mentioned certification is NOT cheap.

 

[FrankN4]

From the owners manual of my 2008 Chevrolet Silverado:

"Use only engine oil identified as meeting GM Standard GM6094M and showing the American Petroleum Institute Certified For Gasoline Engines starburst symbol. Failure to use the recommended oil can result in engine damage not covered by your warranty."

" AS SHOWN IN THE VISCOSITY CHART(5W-30 OIL IS THE ONLY ONE ON THE CHART), SAE 5W-30 IS BEST FOR YOUR VEHICLE. DO NOT USE SAE 10W-40, SAE 20W-50, OR ANY OTHER VISCOSITY GRADE NOT RECOMMENDED."

"IF YOU LIVE IN AN AREA WHERE THE TEMPERATURE FALLS BELOW-20F, IT IS RECOMMENDED YOU USE A SAE 5W-30 SYNTHETIC OIL OR AN SAE 0W-30 OIL."

FROM GARY:
"Hence we have 5w-30 oils ..with no particular exclusive nature to them.. spec'd for the same gas engine that pulls a travel trailer up 6% grades as it is for the sedan that never peaks 100C in oil temp. They just alter the time in service ..something that your commercial service is very sensitive to in terms of costs."
YES, ABSOLUTELY, AMEN, RIGHT ON, THAT IS EXACTLY IT!

If you have an attorney friend that will look at something for you, for free of course, get him/her to actually read the part of the warranty dealing with engine oil. If you have an engine "LUBRICATION RELATED FAILURE" and have the recommended oil, the warranty will cover it. BUT, IF YOUR ENGINE JUST WEARS OUT IN 30,000-40,000 MILES, YOU ARE "NOT" COVERED. The warranty for my Chevrolet even has an exclusion for wear.

I am sure that some of us, "ESPECIALLY ME" over react to some lubrication issues. I have my OCI practices, my filter choices, two brands of oil that I use, synthetic only, and my viscosity preference no matter what the manufacturer recommends. I want what I believe(after study, research, and experience)will give me the longest usable engine life. This has let me average around 200,000 miles(high just over 300,000) before I sell/trade a vehicle. I have never had a lubrication failure and I can't honestly say I have ever completely worn out an engine. Over the years I have had "company cars" where someone else chose and changed the oil and I have had lubrication problems, including one failure at only 50,000 miles. On another, you could turn the engine by grabbing the fan and turning it. Compression was nil. This was back in 1981 and 1984, 10W-30 conventional oil.

It is cold, raining, and the wind is blowing. Perfect weather for working on an amateur radio antenna so that is what I am now going to do.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: bmwtechguy
What is the significance of Synpower and Syntec not on the 4718M list?


I don't think either meet the high temp deposit control of the test.

Good to see Q hp on the list now.