Why GF-5 matters and does not matter

[Pete591]

We all know a conventional/semi-synthetic and GRP III. synthetic/PAO and Ester synthetic can all bear the GF5- SN label.

What does this mean?

Now we have to do VOA's on all the new oils again...wait for in field UOA's to come in and re-evaluate our positions based on new data.

Square one.

 

[chubbs1]

I see your point but base oils haven't changed (that much), and the additive packs for the oils have been in use for some time in SM oils before API SN officially came on the labels. So I do not think anything will change; change for the worse anyway. So I would not worry too much. Most of the recent posted UOA's wear #'s are what we are going to see in general.

 

[mongo161]

Not to mention name brands, but some of the add packs, with the change to SN, GF-5; look as if they are not as potent as their SM package.

It's possible that since the base stock for certain brands of oils had to be significantly improved to meet the SN, GF-5 rating. This had the effect of lowering the more costly additives in the add packs for the new SN, GF-5. It appears that some brand name oils add packs may now have other less expensive ingredients for wear or the add pack ingredients have been lowered in the SN GF-5 from the GF-4.

But who knows for sure....VOA oil analysis does not show all of the proprietary ingredients used by manufactures of add packs or oil blenders.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
It appears that some brand name oils add packs may now have other less expensive ingredients for wear or the add pack ingredients have been lowered in the SN GF-5 from the GF-4.



I know for a fact the GF-5 additives packs are about 23% more expensive than any of the older addpack formulations.

Time will tell, but the GF-5 oils should show longer drain intervals due to better anti-oxidant components, better mileage due to newer organic FM components, and improved anti-wear components. The ashless detergent/dispersant components should leave fewer deposits and show cleaner engines.

 

[Pete591]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
It appears that some brand name oils add packs may now have other less expensive ingredients for wear or the add pack ingredients have been lowered in the SN GF-5 from the GF-4.



I know for a fact the GF-5 additives packs are about 23% more expensive than any of the older addpack formulations.

Time will tell, but the GF-5 oils should show longer drain intervals due to better anti-oxidant components, better mileage due to newer organic FM components, and improved anti-wear components. The ashless detergent/dispersant components should leave fewer deposits and show cleaner engines.


All great points and well taken.

Then I read this statement from Castrol of Germany:

Castrol Syntec SAE 0W-30 is formulated to meet specific European manufacturer specifications including those of VW, BMW and Mercedes Benz. These specifications require certain motor oil properties that are inconsistent with the requirements of ILSAC GF-5 and therefore will not be transitioning to ILSAC GF-5. Sincerely, The Castrol Crew

This tells me that GF-5 is all about politics and not what's best for a car.

It's a quasi legislative grading system more than anything me thinks.

 

[steve20]

^^^ and guess who's paying for this?

 

[Unleashedbeast]

Originally Posted By: Pete591
This tells me that GF-5 is all about politics and not what's best for a car.


API SM/SN were also politics. If the federal government hadn't increased the warranty mileage for catalysts sold on new cars in the USA, I doubt that API SM or SN would have ever existed.

If they did exist, it wouldn't be due to lower amounts of ZDDP.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Pete591
We all know a conventional/semi-synthetic and GRP III. synthetic/PAO and Ester synthetic can all bear the GF5- SN label.

What does this mean?

Now we have to do VOA's on all the new oils again...wait for in field UOA's to come in and re-evaluate our positions based on new data.

Square one.



I think I'm back to square one. Many oils changed quite a bit. In my case it looks like Edge with Titanium 0W20 took a giant step back or the PDS is totally screwed up. Edge with Syntec the cheaper product looks better on paper in a 0W20 than the Edge with Titanium does. Either way the SM product is now totally different than the SN. So in effect I'm starting over once my stash of Edge SM is used up, or Castrol proof reads their PDS resulting in changes to it. JMO

 

[BigBird57]

This is where I am confused. The GF5 specs changed to the point where Amsoil has discontinued the 35K mile formula. The flagship Signature series is back to 25K drain interval. Why ? Is it the mandated reduction in the TBN ? Lower ZDDP content?

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint


I think I'm back to square one. Many oils changed quite a bit. In my case it looks like Edge with Titanium 0W20 took a giant step back or the PDS is totally screwed up. Edge with Syntec the cheaper product looks better on paper in a 0W20 than the Edge with Titanium does. Either way the SM product is now totally different than the SN. So in effect I'm starting over once my stash of Edge SM is used up, or Castrol proof reads their PDS resulting in changes to it. JMO


I agree with your thoughts on the Edge 0W20, but I seriously question whether or not achieving the GF-5 certification had anything to do with it. It simply looks like a cheaper oil. That's sheer speculation on my part, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[CATERHAM]

One theory I have on the dramatically different SN Edge 0W-20 (VI drop from 220 to 161) and to a lesser extent their 5W-20 formulations over the prior SM versions and the need to reformulate is related to the GF-5 requirement increase in deposit control.
I posit that the ultra high VI SM contained a ton of VII's that undoubtedly sheared a lot before stablizing and those shear byproducts increased engine oil deposits which made it harder to meet the GF-5 clean requirements; hence the reduced VI in the SN oil.

The target oil that Edge 0W-20 was fashioned after was the Toyota Brand 0W-20 with it's 214 VI and to date there is no SN GF-5 version of this oil nor is there a SN version of the Idemitsu made Honda Brand 0W-20 (VI 200); yet.
It will be interesting if there will be a formulation change if and when they go GF-5.

 

[JOD]

While I understand your logic, I have to wonder if CP can make a GF-5/SN 0W20 with a VI of 170 with an oil labelled as a "blend" (I haven't seen the PDS on their full synthetic), then I'm having a difficult time reconciling the dramatic change with the Edge 0W20.

Here would be another possible scenario: they're using a much cheaper base oil, along with fewer (or cheaper) VII's, since BP realize that oil nerds pouring over PDS sheets before making a purchasing decision comprise a very small % of their customers.

Based on the CP PDS, it seems like it's possible to make a GII/GIII blend which meets GF-5/SN with a reasonable VI, and do it pretty cheaply. So the reasons for the huge drop in VI for the Edge 0W20 still remain a mystery to me.

 

[Ken2]

The European oils that meet their manufacturer specs probably won't meet the U.S. fuel efficiency spec. They might be rated SN but won't meet GF-5.

And the catcon warranty extension saves money for whom?.....the car owner.

Amsoil never submits their oils for testing, so none of them meet any spec except Amsoil's own spec (and SAE J300 for viscosity). (Excluding the 3 oils they choose to license.)

 

[demarpaint]

JOD and CATERHAM bring up some interesting points re: Castrol Edge. What I find confusing is this. The specs for Edge Syntec 0W20 look better than the more costly Edge with Titanium 0W20.

Then there is the pour point, this came from the Edge Syntec PDS: Check out the pour point of the 0W30 vs the 0W20. Did they cheap out on the 20 grade base stock, ad pack, or screw up the PDS? LOL

Pour Point, F (C) max
ASTM D97
0W20 Pour point is -38F (-39)
0W30 Pour point is -65F (-54)

 

[Pete591]

Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast
Originally Posted By: Pete591
This tells me that GF-5 is all about politics and not what's best for a car.


API SM/SN were also politics. If the federal government hadn't increased the warranty mileage for catalysts sold on new cars in the USA, I doubt that API SM or SN would have ever existed.

If they did exist, it wouldn't be due to lower amounts of ZDDP.


Right..no increase in catalytic converter warranties and a good SL rated oil is all you need. Therefore a good SL rated oil will not damage a catalytic converter BUT if it needs replacement the manufacturer pays....before when buyers paid it didn't matter... Now all of a sudden in the USA because of this they would rather error on the side of using a less effective add pack (engine wear increase potential) than mess up a catalytic converter they have to pay parts and labor to replace.

Let's present it in terms of "a horse of course"...it is what it is or seems to be.

Now in Germany and other countries they use Castrol 0W-30 SL..rated oil. Why? ZDDP works. Period. They worry more about the engine than a stupid catalytic converter warranty.

 

[chubbs1]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
One theory I have on the dramatically different SN Edge 0W-20 (VI drop from 220 to 161) and to a lesser extent their 5W-20 formulations over the prior SM versions and the need to reformulate is related to the GF-5 requirement increase in deposit control.
I posit that the ultra high VI SM contained a ton of VII's that undoubtedly sheared a lot before stablizing and those shear byproducts increased engine oil deposits which made it harder to meet the GF-5 clean requirements; hence the reduced VI in the SN oil.


Didn't we get into an "argument" about the use of too many VII's in oils? It seems as if you have changed your position.

I totally agree w/ this post CATERHAM. You know your stuff and I am not challenging you but I just can't stand oils w/ too high of a VI, especially a semi-syn like Toyota 0w20....it makes me wonder if they are just shoveling blocks of VII in their oil. There is NO way it is even close to natural. I don't see why people get bent out of shape by a VI of 160-175. Very good balance for a QUALITY base oil.

 

[30valve]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
JOD and CATERHAM bring up some interesting points re: Castrol Edge. What I find confusing is this. The specs for Edge Syntec 0W20 look better than the more costly Edge with Titanium 0W20.

Then there is the pour point, this came from the Edge Syntec PDS: Check out the pour point of the 0W30 vs the 0W20. Did they cheap out on the 20 grade base stock, ad pack, or screw up the PDS? LOL

Pour Point, F (C) max
ASTM D97
0W20 Pour point is -38F (-39)
0W30 Pour point is -65F (-54)



Base stock not as good. GC is made of some of the best group 4 base stock out there. My guess is the 0w-20 is blend of group 3 and 4.

 

[demarpaint]

^^^ Agreed, the difference in pour point is tremendous, and most people would think that a 0W20 should have a better pour point than a 0W30. Certainly not the case here, especially when Edge with Titanium is supposed to be the best of the line up.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: chubbs1

I just can't stand oils w/ too high of a VI, especially a semi-syn like Toyota 0w20....it makes me wonder if they are just shoveling blocks of VII in their oil. There is NO way it is even close to natural.




???

First off, it's a full synthetic, with a pour point of -51C. That would seem to indicate it's made from pretty high-quality base stocks. Secondly, you have no idea of the composition of the VII's. You're making assumptions about both the quality and quantity of the VII's, and that seems a little misguided.

From the limited UOA's available, the oil has shown to be pretty shear-stable, and it's robust enough for Toyota to recommend 10K OCI's. So, "hating an oil" simply because of a high VI just seems odd to me. Ultimately how the product performs is what matters. If the oil is reasonably shear-stable, has a low start-up viscosity and adequate thickness at operating temp, what's not to like?

 

[ltslimjim]

So, is the general consensus that most liked SM rated oil?

It's a real shame if more wear numbers start popping up in UOAs of SN across the board. Is that expected here, folks or just a concern that we won't know until long-term?