Mobil1 5w-30 meet dexos1- Combined Dexos Thread

[jeepman]

I may have missed it, but does anyone know yet who worked with GM to develop and is manufacturing the new Dexos factory fill? Since XOM is on the fence and SOPUS is already on-board, does that mean SOPUS scooped the contract from XOM and that PP is the new factory fill?

Seems kinda odd that we are that close to introduction of this oil, and XOM has not committed but SOPUS has. I would think someone has to manufacturing it right now or they won't make the introduction deadline.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Aftertreatment Compatibility looks like the goal of this spec.

If so, base oil quality would be at a premium, which may leave independent blenders, like Valvoline, in the lurch.

I suspect all products will rise to this new "standard" that is quite a bit higher than ISLAC or API. Looks like a move by GM to "take over".

 

[dk1604]

Here's a hypothetical question for you all. When comparing the Lubrizol spider diagrams of dexos1 vs GF-5 it would seem that GM and ILSAC had a difference of opinion on what they would like to see in a motor oil. If given a choice of a dexos1 oil that did not meet GF-5 or a GF-5 oil that did not meet dexos1, what would you choose?

Note that this certainly seems to be the case with ACEA A5 and GF-5. According to the Pennzoil Q&A, you cannot have both (Question 17).

I wonder if dexos is GM's attempt to ACEA'ize the North American oil market.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I think you answered the questions. GM wants to go to a high-performing, longlife synthetic requirement to extended OCI without causing engine oiling problems. SN/GF5 especially dino is not going to get them there and GM wants to get there faster than API/ILSAC or whoever agreed to.


So, my view is that GM isn't entirely to blame. Sure, GM wants its royalties, and that costs consumers money. However, API/ILSAC wants its licensing fees for a specification that is obsolete before its release according to General Motors, and pretty much all the German manufacturers.

The previous set of specs certainly had a point to them. While not ideal for old flat tappet engines, according to some, at least they were designed to protect the emissions systems of modern engines. Whether or not that was needed is another issue, but it was a significant reason.

For those specs, manufacturers seemed to have gotten what they wanted to protect long emissions systems warranties, particularly when it comes to the cat. What went wrong this time? I'd certainly love to know what Ford, Chrysler, and the Asian manufacturers would have to say about all this.

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Aftertreatment Compatibility looks like the goal of this spec.

If so, base oil quality would be at a premium, which may leave independent blenders, like Valvoline, in the lurch.

I suspect all products will rise to this new "standard" that is quite a bit higher than ISLAC or API. Looks like a move by GM to "take over".



Or "over take".

If ILSAC and API aren't meeting GM's needs, then it's time for GM to move past them.

If higher oil standards give GM an advantage, then Ford will follow with their own.

API ILSAC standards have brought order to oil standards, they have also slowed progress and eliminated the need for the major manufacturers to compete in that area.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: dk1604
Here's a hypothetical question for you all. When comparing the Lubrizol spider diagrams of dexos1 vs GF-5 it would seem that GM and ILSAC had a difference of opinion on what they would like to see in a motor oil. If given a choice of a dexos1 oil that did not meet GF-5 or a GF-5 oil that did not meet dexos1, what would you choose?

Note that this certainly seems to be the case with ACEA A5 and GF-5. According to the Pennzoil Q&A, you cannot have both (Question 17).

I wonder if dexos is GM's attempt to ACEA'ize the North American oil market.


In reality I think Dexos will meet GF-5 but GF-5 will not necessarily meet Dexos. I think Dexos is a superior spec to GF5 in most catagories that matter. You can get to SN/GF-5 with conventional but not to Dexos. It's a lot like asking which is superior PP or PYB.

I will say though that Dexos currently seems to be not as cost effective as GF-5 not because of licensing fees but because if GF-4 dinos were getting 12K mile OCI roughly twice as expensive full synthetic is not going to double that at least at first. As it stands it seems only full synthetics meet Dexos but I guess it is possible to get there with a blend and the proper additive pack. And with wide-spread distribution it might be possible for a Dexos spec oil to be cheaper than full synthetics are. Of course more expensive synthetics are used for other reasons besides extending the OCI, but it's hard to put a value on it. Also I seen that GM thinks Dexos could eventually allow a doubling of OCI, so that would make it a better bargain.

 

[rclint]

I need to go back over charts, wording etc... But without showing how truly ignorant I am what are the features/points that shows dexos 1 requiring a higher standard than GF5 ?

I did read that NOACK for DI engines, any other areas ?

 

[Brian Barnhart]

The Dexos approach makes a lot of sense for a car company who wants to specify one of two oils for all their vehicles sold worldwide.

Car manufacturers with their own unique oil requirements are nothing new. If Dexos were void of the supposedly high fees, there probably wouldn’t be much discussion.

It’s unfortunate that API, ILSAC, and ACEA can’t get together on oil specifications either.

API and ILSAC are the worst with a shortsighted one-size-fits-all approach to oil specs. The oil companies love this because it leaves it all up to marketing. There is nothing in their specs/standards to objectively differentiate oils that might actually be superior. So the oil producers can charge more for any “synthetic” that may offer no benefit over a lower cost oil, and use marketing to sell the consumer a higher priced “synthetic” that meets the same minimum requirements as the cheapest approved oil. With Dexos GM is saying that they want something objectively better than the one and only “minimum”.

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart


It’s unfortunate that API, ILSAC, and ACEA can’t get together on oil specifications either.

API and ILSAC are the worst with a shortsighted one-size-fits-all approach to oil specs.



The more people/groups you have involved in a compromise, the bigger the compromise. API, ILSAC and ACEA all being required to agree would result slower progress and it's doubtful the end result would be as good as them remaining separate.

If Mercedes, VW and GM were developing their own standards to develop and sell worse oil, then we would have reason to complain.

 

[Audi Junkie]

"Get ready for GF-5!"?!

It's a hair better than GF-4.

 

[dk1604]

Originally Posted By: rclint
I need to go back over charts, wording etc... But without showing how truly ignorant I am what are the features/points that shows dexos 1 requiring a higher standard than GF5 ?

I did read that NOACK for DI engines, any other areas ?


I'm pretty ignorant here so I'm just following the fancy graphs provided by Lubrizol:

http://www.gf-5.com/gsuniverse/sitetemplates/gf5/SPIDER DIAGRAM.html

GM seems to be happy with the GF-4 levels on fuel economy and emission system durability and it seems they would rather push the envelope out elsewhere. I know that some of the requirements counter one another but I'm not sure which. For example, can you achieve GF-5 fuel economy and still achieve the other dexos1 requirements with a reasonably priced oil. Hopefully some of the more knowledgeable folks here can explain where the trade-offs are.

 

[Brian Barnhart]

Originally Posted By: XS650
The more people/groups you have involved in a compromise, the bigger the compromise. API, ILSAC and ACEA all being required to agree would result slower progress and it's doubtful the end result would be as good as them remaining separate.

If Mercedes, VW and GM were developing their own standards to develop and sell worse oil, then we would have reason to complain.

If you take the one oil fits all approach, yes, compromise among all those organizations would be very difficult. If forced to choose, I'd suggest dumping API and ILSAC and adopt ACEA with it's multiple categories. Unfortunately the latest ACEA approach combines gas and diesel categories and therefore does not allow the oils to meet the higher fuel efficiency requirements.

Manufacturers manage to make cars run well on available fuels. One would think they could design engines to operate well on one of the available oils. Then again, US manufacturers are basically limited to a single oil spec thanks to API and ILSAC unless they establish their own requirements or adopt an ACEA oil with dwindling US availability.

We have ACEA with many flavors, API and ILSAC with one-size-fits-all, and multiple manufacturers with their own specs. And that's barely enough. The reason for complaint is that more specs generally lead to greater costs and fewer choices of a given (spec.) oil.

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart


Manufacturers manage to make cars run well on available fuels. One would think they could design engines to operate well on one of the available oils. Then again, US manufacturers are basically limited to a single oil spec thanks to API and ILSAC unless they establish their own requirements or adopt an ACEA oil with dwindling US availability.

We have ACEA with many flavors, API and ILSAC with one-size-fits-all, and multiple manufacturers with their own specs. And that's barely enough. The reason for complaint is that more specs generally lead to greater costs and fewer choices of a given (spec.) oil.


The difference I see when comparing oil standards with fuel standards is that introducing multiple new fuels would be a huge logistical problem. Introducing new oils is not such a big problem.

I believe quite a few of the oils in Europe meet multiple manufacturers specs (really meet them, not just a "use where recommended" stamp). If Ford starts pushing the envelope on oil, then I would expect US oil companies to start producing oil that meets both the Ford and GM specs plus API and ILSAC.

 

[Johnny]

You mean like this?

SPECIFICATIONS & APPROVALS

Pennzoil Platinum exceeds the requirements of the following industry specifications :
• North American warranty requirements for U.S., European and Japanese cars and light trucks with gasoline
and gasoline turbo-charged engines where API SN and earlier API categories are specified (all grades).
• ILSAC GF-5 Resource Conserving performance standard (0W-20, 5W-20, 5w30 & 10w30).
• Meets the most advanced emissions and fuel economy standards in the US gasoline powered engines.
• Meets Chrysler MS 6395 (5W-20, 5w30, 10w30)
• Meets Ford WSS M2C945-A (5W-20) and WSS-M2C946-A (5w30)
• Meets GM 6094M specification (SAE 5W-20, 5w30 and SAE 10w30)
• Meets GM 4718M specification for Corvette and Cadillac (5w30 and 10w30).
• Meets GM dexos 1 specification for all GM vehicles (5w30).
• Meets Acura HTO-06 for turbo-charged applications (5w30)

 

[Audi Junkie]

plus ACEA A5.

 

[rclint]

I see by the spider web chart, however I do wish the web had a reference chart as to what each line on the web represented, I know I ask way to much but all this could be over a .5% with no reference on the chart..

I also wonder if most oils now do not already meet or exceed many of these dexos 1 specs, and I will also state that it is kind of crazy having a oil across the board for turbo charger when most of GM's cars ( I would not be out of line by saying by far the majority) don't have a turbo charger..

So is this what an oil spec is coming to make it easier for the mass to find an oil for the car by going across the board with turbo charger approved oil rather than have a spec for a few % of GM cars that do have a turbo charger... which will cost the public a lot more money if added up over the entire fleet ?

Don't get me wrong here you can read back over my post I want the specs to be easier for the general public, I also like everything simplified, BUT I don't want to be purchasing oil for a corvette engine to put in my pinto so GM can have dexos 1.. this is of course a general term I know pinto's have an oiless sump for the g-forces and the 4 banger vette will run on anything

 

[XS650]

Johnny, Yes that's a decent example.

If they add a couple of more specs, they will need a 2nd page for the label.

I would like to see a spider diagram for all those specs.

 

[mechanicx]

A Malibu might not need "Corvette" oil but with Dexos the OLM might be calibrated to allow it a longer OCI. I'm thinking there will still be GF-5 conventional oil if you don't want/need Dexos 1 or synthetic.

 

[Audi Junkie]

The entry-level Chevy Cruze sports a 1.4l turbo as an option.

 

[C2H5OH]

The reality of modern oil service approvals REQUIRES the GM dexos1 licensing and approval system to REDUCE the cost of higher quality oil and identify which oil products actually meet higher standards.

The current self authorization allowed by ILSAC/API and other OEM approvals is plagued with gross abuses and misleading labeling that API does not wish to address and no other OEM approval has been successful in addressing.

The GM licensing fee is CHEAPER than the "independent" (but often extremely biased and manipulated) lab testing that oil companies now pay for in order to make it appear that inferior oil products pass API & ILSAC requirements.

Currently, independent labs are frequently retained to run test sequences with an understanding that if the test appears to be failing, the lab will "find a reason" to stop and invalidate the test. The tests sequences are repeated until finally one single pass is achieved this process is repeated in all of the required test sequences until an inferior thrifted product can "claim compliance". The oil companies pay far more to these independent labs for these services than they ever will for the GM licensing.

Already, the GM dexos1 oil is available for significantly less money than the most common GM 4718M approved product it replaces.

Oil companies who wish to continue misleading the industry and public will continue to make place claims like "ACEA A1 Protection" on products that fail ACEA A1 requirements (Valvoline does this) and claim "Meets all GM 4718M engine protection requirements" on products that fail GM 4718M (Castrol does this). The dexos1 trademark and licensing agreement address this effectively.

You can expect the same companies that used misleading labeling to continue doing so to sell inferior products at inflated prices. But, Shell, Mobil and GM are already supplying dexos1 compliant products. And, the "GM" version is dirt cheap (cheaper than the 4718M products it replaces) when you consider the quality and performance standards of the product.