Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by Garak
I think GM was dissatisfied with the rate things were going or how far they were going or perhaps both. They've had an enhanced specification (i.e. the Vette spec) for years, so it's not surprising that they'd want to keep ahead of things, and that on its own isn't a dig at the API/ILSAC regime. I'm not sure how close SP/GF-6 will be to the current dexos1 standards. Mobil claims, from tig1's link, that their formulations are already GF-6 capable. Whether that applies to everything is hard to say.
We do have to be careful, here, and the API/ILSAC regime is being careful, I suspect. If you make SP/GF-6 to be virtually identical to current dexos1, then you're leaving a pile of current products hanging in the breeze. What do the oil companies do? Do they discontinue PYB, QSGB, Mobil Super convenional, and GTX, since they'll never make it at their price point? Or, do you upgrade the product significantly and then cannibalize the rest of your products? We already have enough trouble distinguishing between PP and PUP. What would be the hypothetical point to having a PYB, PP, and PUP all with the exact same specifications, including dexos1 (which PUP doesn't have right now, but that can always change), within a very narrow price range? Or do you just keep them SN/GF-5 until those become obsolete (and the GF-5 won't take long to become obsolete) and then stick with "recommended for" label thereafter, and risk not being sold in California?
I don't see an easy answer, but the path of least resistance would probably to have SP/GF-6 somewhere that would satisfy most automakers, particularly those without their own proprietary specifications. GM has their dexos1 and it has significant market penetration. They've already demonstrated they want to go above the basic ILSAC standards, but not all automakers are onboard with that.
You also have to watch to not alienate the motor oil buying public that doesn't have a new car and isn't willing and doesn't have to spend "synthetic" money for a "conventional" jug. The backwards compatibility is certainly still there, but you have to protect your brands and market share. Something like my F-150 certainly can use a dexos1 5w-30. I'd see no benefit over the conventional alternative, though, and wouldn't like the price increase.
Well said, thanks.
Is it true that a conventional oil can not meet/carry the Dexos seal? Can a syn blend meet D1G2 standards? If so, then I suppose the oil companies will move away from 100% dino to syn blends???... there goes sub $15 5qt jugs, no? Well, I hope the price on the Supreme 5w20/30 wouldn't go up... that's an amazing value for a good oil.
Doubt it. Theres still a crowd of people out there who still think that you cant switch back to conventional once you use synthetic. Theres always going to be a market for conventional, especially in older vehicles where people still believe that if you put synthetic in a 54 Chevy, itll blow up.
Either way if GF6 SP is gonna get pushed out, I cant wait for the GF5 SN clearance.
Edit: alot of "conventionals" are already SynBlends technically. I'm sure they're avoiding calling them synblends due to people who only use conventional. Chevron Supreme Conventional, some GTX, and others are all actually synblends but from what I've seen are marketed as conventional.