Son of Dexos coming 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
958
Location
Ohio
From this week's Lube Report

2nd generation of Dexos 1&2 is coming hopefully in 2015, which is almost 2 years ahead of GF-6.

The article does a good job explaining what dexos really is:
Quote:
Goals of the Dexos program are first to have a global common engine oil specification for factory and service fill, said Johnson. Other key goals include fuel economy improvements, engine oil robustness improvements, more catalyst-friendly fluids, and hardware-enabling engine oils that control aeration.

With engine life monitors now in more than 90 percent of GM vehicles, GM requires oils that compliment the oil life monitoring system and give customers lower cost of ownership and improved satisfaction through optimized drain intervals.


and this interesting snippet about the new Sequence VI-E fuel economy test and the use of a fuel additive:
Quote:
The Sequence VIE fuel economy test, he said, has shown exhaust valve leakage at some labs due to deposit build-up. The build-up can be eliminated using a top-tier fuel additive, which is now being used in the test. Test duration has increased from 155 hours to 200 hours.


I have seen many cases where using fuel additives/top tier fuel can contribute to the OCI length and show up UOA results. Just something those of us who are running out the OCI to a maximum possible range might want to consider.
 
Oh no, a "what Dexos really is" and "top tier gas" reference in the same post! This is going to bring the BITOG servers to their knees!
 
Originally Posted By: bepperb
Oh no, a "what Dexos really is" and "top tier gas" reference in the same post! This is going to bring the BITOG servers to their knees!



GF-6. It's oil porn!
 
Last edited:
Big yawn. No top tier gas outlets in my area. Contacted all station HQ's to ask. So that is off the list. Not even worried about dexos 1, let alone son of dexos. They make all these intimidating standards up, and don't take into account many areas of the country can't comply. Oil, maybe. Fuel, not hardly.
 
:BUMP:

is pertinent to current discussions...not sure how a test for auto-ignition in DI engines is equivalent to lining pockets...but have at it.
 
Americans get ripped off by the corrupt MBAs all the time so it is just assumed.

I would think they would try to combine Dexos 1 and Dexos 2 spec into one.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
is pertinent to current discussions...not sure how a test for auto-ignition in DI engines is equivalent to lining pockets...but have at it.

Well, as you're aware, everything that succeeded carbs, monogrades, leaded gas, tubed tires, and points has been solely a cash grab.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Solarent

and this interesting snippet about the new Sequence VI-E fuel economy test and the use of a fuel additive:
Quote:
The Sequence VIE fuel economy test, he said, has shown exhaust valve leakage at some labs due to deposit build-up. The build-up can be eliminated using a top-tier fuel additive, which is now being used in the test. Test duration has increased from 155 hours to 200 hours.


I have seen many cases where using fuel additives/top tier fuel can contribute to the OCI length and show up UOA results. Just something those of us who are running out the OCI to a maximum possible range might want to consider.


I guess they still haven't solved the exhaust valve carbon buildup problem yet. Can top tier gas really eliminate the problem? I could have sworn it couldn't "solve it", maybe slow it down a bit.
 
Quote:
With engine life monitors now in more than 90 percent of GM vehicles, GM requires oils that compliment the oil life monitoring system and give customers lower cost of ownership and improved satisfaction through optimized drain intervals.


This is another positive argument for Dexos. They can tailor the OLM algorithms to spec, everything is on the same sheet of music.
Same car one owner is running dino, the other a blend and yet another running synthetic there is no way for the OLM system to differentiate making it less accurate.

This can save owners money by them not tailoring their OLM to the lowest spec oils on the market.
A properly functioning and accurate OLM is better for everyone by reducing the amount of waste oil.

I really like the simplicity of Dexos, reading the reverse labels for all sorts of specs for the average driver isn't realistic.
Todays engines are more dependent on quality oil than they ever were, making sure the correct oil is being used in a user friendly way is a good thing.

why shouldn't GM be able to charge for using the label? They devised the system, did the R&D and is actively marketing the spec.
Marketing dollars the the oil manufacturers may have saved in the long run by GM driving customers to their Dexos labeled product.

49.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
This is another positive argument for Dexos. They can tailor the OLM algorithms to spec, everything is on the same sheet of music.
Same car one owner is running dino, the other a blend and yet another running synthetic there is no way for the OLM system to differentiate making it less accurate.


I'm not sure how this is different from API SN. I'm not sure I've seen GM's OLM intervals be lengthened with dexos1. In fact, they've shortened the OLM interval on some engines, and for reasons unrelated to direct injection.

As with API SN, an owner can choose to use an oil with superior specifications than dexos1, and he or she then assumes the consequences of either spending more money (if they maintain the OLM internval) or coming up with a new interval if they choose to not follow the OLM.

Like most other oil standards, dexos1 sets certain minimum performance requirements. True, they are often higher/more stringent than with API SN. In practice, however, I'm not sure we're seeing any difference in either engine longevity or extended drain intervals. Cadillac has been running 10k mile intervals with their OLM for decades...back with API SL and before.

In terms of the royalty, I think GM stands alone (or is at least mostly alone) in charging money for a licensing program. Honda, for example, doesn't charge a royalty for all bottles sold that meet HTO-06, even though they did the R&D on it. I think the attention GM brings on itself for this dexos1/2 license is because that's not commonplace in the industry. Not that it's necessarily right or wrong...it's just not the norm.
 
SN is a very easy spec to meet. Cheap dino all the way up to the best synthetics both can and do have SN on the label.
Dexos replaced GM 4718 the corvette/high performance spec so with Dexos you are getting an oil that is approved for protecting the most expensive Corvette engine in the least expensive 4 banger offered globally.
 
GM 4718 is another good example of a manufacturer (GM in this case, ironically) doing R&D on a lubricant specification and NOT selling its branding as part of a licensing program, as it is doing with dexos1/2.

I agree with you on the merits of a single oil specification. Like others, I find the licensing of that specification curious, especially since there is little precedent to it and GM in the past has not done that with previous motor oil specifications.
 
Hi guys
I admit I have been out of the loop for awhile
I have never owned a GM and I am confused about the whole Dexos thing
Why is a GM engine different from others
Still just pistons rods and valves
Help an old guy out
 
Originally Posted By: Dallas69
Hi guys
I admit I have been out of the loop for awhile
I have never owned a GM and I am confused about the whole Dexos thing
Why is a GM engine different from others
Still just pistons rods and valves
Help an old guy out


They aren't different. GM has set a minimum level of performance for a lubricant for use in their engines and that performance is validated through the DEXOS approval process.

This process is likely somewhat similar to what the Euro marques do, like BMW with LL-01, Mercedes with their various specs, VW with theirs....etc.

The difference is that GM charges a royalty for the DEXOS name, whilst other manufacturers who maintain their own OEM approvals do not. GM didn't used to do it either, it is just something that started with DEXOS.
 
GM is just doing things a little different. Whether or not one agrees with it, the concept is simple. If one owns a GM gasoline engine, one looks for an oil with the dexos1 logo on the front, as opposed to reading the fine print about specs on the back.
 
Thanks for the reply
Does this mean that if you used a top quality oil that is not Dexos approved that your warranty is no good
 
Originally Posted By: Dallas69
Thanks for the reply
Does this mean that if you used a top quality oil that is not Dexos approved that your warranty is no good


There could be warranty issues if you had an oil related engine problem and you weren't using GM approved oil. They can't totally void your warranty. EG: if your alternator goes bad and you're still under warranty it would be covered.
 
Originally Posted By: Dallas69
Thanks for the reply
Does this mean that if you used a top quality oil that is not Dexos approved that your warranty is no good


Depends on the verbiage in your manual. Some of the manuals seem to require the use of an oil meeting DEXOS 1, whilst others say to use DEXOS 1 or an oil labelled as energy conserving and carrying the API SN designation if the DEXOS 1 product is not available.
21.gif


Ford did similar things with their manuals in the last few years, first leaning hard on the consumer using an approved product and then backing off a bit from that saying to use an approved oil or a product that met the performance requirements of the spec.

The North American consumer is a difficult one to deal with because the vast majority don't look at what approvals a product carries. Heck, the manufacturer is lucky if they even grab the right grade of oil. Many shops are ignorant of the requirements of various applications too, and even the dealerships. This is what led to the VW sludge fiasco.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top