Has dexos1 bolstered the image of Synthetic Blends

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the DX in the name means full synthetic. Not sure, as Castrol uses SLX, DX, GTX, etc. all over the place. Appears to be something in UK-Europe and Australia.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: FetchFar

Dexos1 is a tougher spec to meet than the standard SN/GF-5, particularly in wear, deposits, and foaming. Lubrizol ranks it quite high in wear performance, according to the fun tool at Link to Lubrizol's Spider Chart.

I like the discussion on whether it "has to be" a synthetic or not. Notice GM just specified performance and let the oil companies do the rest, although, really, GM also looked at what could be done with a good syn blend currently.

What could be cool is the first oil company to come up with a conventional dino oil that meets dexos1.


Except in one area... dealing with ethanol. Since more and more locales are requiring oxygenated fuels containing ethanol, dexos fall flat on its face compared to SN/GF-5, and the situation the way it is with local and state mandates regarding ethanol, I would think that is just as important. So, I don't quite look at the dexos1 spec with any sense of fondness. Any oil that claims to meet all three specs will probably be a safe bet for all situations.
 
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
I think the DX in the name means full synthetic. Not sure, as Castrol uses SLX, DX, GTX, etc. all over the place. Appears to be something in UK-Europe and Australia.


DX just means dexos. SLX has been replaced by Edge.

Looking at the data sheets it would appear the Australian GTX dexos 1 is a rebadge of Magnatec dexos 1

This is how different the oil market is in Aus. GM vehicles are one of the highest sellers in the country, yet the likes of Shell, Caltex and Castrol don't offer a dexos 1 at retail level. Mobil 1 5w30 is available for stupid money though.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: FetchFar

Dexos1 is a tougher spec to meet than the standard SN/GF-5, particularly in wear, deposits, and foaming. Lubrizol ranks it quite high in wear performance, according to the fun tool at Link to Lubrizol's Spider Chart.

I like the discussion on whether it "has to be" a synthetic or not. Notice GM just specified performance and let the oil companies do the rest, although, really, GM also looked at what could be done with a good syn blend currently.

What could be cool is the first oil company to come up with a conventional dino oil that meets dexos1.


Except in one area... dealing with ethanol. Since more and more locales are requiring oxygenated fuels containing ethanol, dexos fall flat on its face compared to SN/GF-5, and the situation the way it is with local and state mandates regarding ethanol, I would think that is just as important. So, I don't quite look at the dexos1 spec with any sense of fondness. Any oil that claims to meet all three specs will probably be a safe bet for all situations.


dexos1 Always exists as a spec to pass on top of the basic SN/GF-5. In fact, for all dexos1 synthetics, they meet a bunch of other specs as well. Point is, an oil is never ONLY a dexos1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top