Like Mobil 1 never failed an independent API test.
Mobil1 5w-30 meet dexos1- Combined Dexos Thread
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 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.
Posted here before but here is the link to Lubrizol's relative performance tool:
http://www.lubrizol.com/EuropeanEngineOils/RelativePerformanceToolIntro.html
Johnny, Yes that's a decent example.
I would like to see a spider diagram for all those specs.
Posted here before but here is the link to Lubrizol's relative performance tool:
http://www.lubrizol.com/EuropeanEngineOils/RelativePerformanceToolIntro.html
When you check GF-5 vs C1-08 which is also a lower HTHS, low SAPS oil, you get these relative performance numbers:
GF-5 C1-08
Soot thickening 0 6
Wear 3 8
Sludge 2 9
Piston deposits 4 9
oxidation thickeng 7 5 *
Fuel economy 10 8 *
aftertreatment 8 10
GF-5 was only slightly higher in oxidation thickening and fuel economy, but much lower than C1-08 in all other more important areas. And surprisingly C1-08 was better with aftertreatment compatibility. Is GF5 really that weak compared to a similar pre-existing European standard? Plus we have more sulpher and ethanol in our gas. No wonder GM wants something better. And no wonder the 3k mile/3 month OCI "myth" prevails. edit: the list didn't come out in neat columns like a typed, waste of time.
GF-5 C1-08
Soot thickening 0 6
Wear 3 8
Sludge 2 9
Piston deposits 4 9
oxidation thickeng 7 5 *
Fuel economy 10 8 *
aftertreatment 8 10
GF-5 was only slightly higher in oxidation thickening and fuel economy, but much lower than C1-08 in all other more important areas. And surprisingly C1-08 was better with aftertreatment compatibility. Is GF5 really that weak compared to a similar pre-existing European standard? Plus we have more sulpher and ethanol in our gas. No wonder GM wants something better. And no wonder the 3k mile/3 month OCI "myth" prevails. edit: the list didn't come out in neat columns like a typed, waste of time.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dk1604
Originally Posted By: XS650
I would like to see a spider diagram for all those specs.
Posted here before but here is the link to Lubrizol's relative performance tool:
http://www.lubrizol.com/EuropeanEngineOils/RelativePerformanceToolIntro.html
Thanks, nice tool.
Originally Posted By: XS650
I would like to see a spider diagram for all those specs.
Posted here before but here is the link to Lubrizol's relative performance tool:
http://www.lubrizol.com/EuropeanEngineOils/RelativePerformanceToolIntro.html
Thanks, nice tool.
Originally Posted By: 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.
I can’t buy the concept that Dexos1 will reduce the cost of higher quality oil. Dexos 1 oils may be higher quality than most straight dino oils, but they also cost more than $12 per 5 quarts. And some currently available OTC oils are probably superior to Dexos 1 in some areas while also being cheaper. From what I've read Dexos 1 costs as much or more than the most popular synthetics which cost around $20 for 5 quarts.
Originally Posted By: C2H5OH
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.
Can you provide data in support of these strong claims?
Originally Posted By: C2H5OH
Already, the GM dexos1 oil is available for significantly less money than the most common GM 4718M approved product it replaces.
The most common GM 4718 product is perhaps M1 which is available for about $20 per 5 quarts, no more than Dexos 1.
Originally Posted By: C2H5OH
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.
The above might have been true at one time for both Valvoline and Castrol. However, the June 1, 2009 GM 4718M Registered products list includes Synpower and Edge.
In their most recent data sheet, Valvoline makes it clear that their 10W30 Synpower does not meet the european fuel economy requirements of A1 and A5. And the last Syntec data sheet I saw made no claims with regard to 4718M.
I don't see how Dexos specs will prevent some makers for marketing oils that meet most requirements of Dexos and not others (if they clearly state such). For example some customers might be interested in an oil that meets all Dexos 1requirements except for fuel economy if it costs $1 per quart less than 100% compliant Dexos 1.
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.
I can’t buy the concept that Dexos1 will reduce the cost of higher quality oil. Dexos 1 oils may be higher quality than most straight dino oils, but they also cost more than $12 per 5 quarts. And some currently available OTC oils are probably superior to Dexos 1 in some areas while also being cheaper. From what I've read Dexos 1 costs as much or more than the most popular synthetics which cost around $20 for 5 quarts.
Originally Posted By: C2H5OH
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.
Can you provide data in support of these strong claims?
Originally Posted By: C2H5OH
Already, the GM dexos1 oil is available for significantly less money than the most common GM 4718M approved product it replaces.
The most common GM 4718 product is perhaps M1 which is available for about $20 per 5 quarts, no more than Dexos 1.
Originally Posted By: C2H5OH
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.
The above might have been true at one time for both Valvoline and Castrol. However, the June 1, 2009 GM 4718M Registered products list includes Synpower and Edge.
In their most recent data sheet, Valvoline makes it clear that their 10W30 Synpower does not meet the european fuel economy requirements of A1 and A5. And the last Syntec data sheet I saw made no claims with regard to 4718M.
I don't see how Dexos specs will prevent some makers for marketing oils that meet most requirements of Dexos and not others (if they clearly state such). For example some customers might be interested in an oil that meets all Dexos 1requirements except for fuel economy if it costs $1 per quart less than 100% compliant Dexos 1.
I just bought a 2011 Chevy Camaro 2SS/RS this July (I just hit 900 miles but I did change out the oil w/ Mobil One at 500 mi.), now in the manual it states that the Factory fill is "dexos" but I did get a sheet of paper from the salesman just like the page in a manual that states that my engine was Factory fill w/ Mobil One 5w30 ..
So I popped the hood open and it has a Mobil One oil filler cap which makes me to believe that indeed the Factory fill in my Camaro SS is Mobil One and not "dexos".. I have an early build 2011 production Camaro with a low VIN # so they must still be using Mobil One as a Factory fill possibly to the end of this year I suppose..
Do you think I should stick with Mobil One or should I start to replace the oil now with Pennzoil Plat. which is "dexos" spec. or just keep using Mobil one until "GM" and or Chevrolet requires the use of "dexos" and notifies me with the change , I'm not sure how they will do that unless I have to just take it in for an oil change and then they will tell me then or will they issue a TSB for that when it happens ?
Thanks...
So I popped the hood open and it has a Mobil One oil filler cap which makes me to believe that indeed the Factory fill in my Camaro SS is Mobil One and not "dexos".. I have an early build 2011 production Camaro with a low VIN # so they must still be using Mobil One as a Factory fill possibly to the end of this year I suppose..
Do you think I should stick with Mobil One or should I start to replace the oil now with Pennzoil Plat. which is "dexos" spec. or just keep using Mobil one until "GM" and or Chevrolet requires the use of "dexos" and notifies me with the change , I'm not sure how they will do that unless I have to just take it in for an oil change and then they will tell me then or will they issue a TSB for that when it happens ?
Thanks...
Changing out good oil is always pointless.
Originally Posted By: lwrnccst
I just bought a 2011 Chevy Camaro 2SS/RS this July (I just hit 900 miles but I did change out the oil w/ Mobil One at 500 mi.), now in the manual it states that the Factory fill is "dexos" but I did get a sheet of paper from the salesman just like the page in a manual that states that my engine was Factory fill w/ Mobil One 5w30 ..
So I popped the hood open and it has a Mobil One oil filler cap which makes me to believe that indeed the Factory fill in my Camaro SS is Mobil One and not "dexos".. I have an early build 2011 production Camaro with a low VIN # so they must still be using Mobil One as a Factory fill possibly to the end of this year I suppose..
Do you think I should stick with Mobil One or should I start to replace the oil now with Pennzoil Plat. which is "dexos" spec. or just keep using Mobil one until "GM" and or Chevrolet requires the use of "dexos" and notifies me with the change , I'm not sure how they will do that unless I have to just take it in for an oil change and then they will tell me then or will they issue a TSB for that when it happens ?
Thanks...
If you were following what the oil cap said I would imagine you would be alright. I haven't heard whether or not Mobil 1 plans on meeting Dexos yet. If you wanted to be entirely safe, just ask the dealer, but omit the fact that you've already changed the oil or just use Pennzoil Platinum until Mobil confirms or denies they are Dexos compliant.
I just bought a 2011 Chevy Camaro 2SS/RS this July (I just hit 900 miles but I did change out the oil w/ Mobil One at 500 mi.), now in the manual it states that the Factory fill is "dexos" but I did get a sheet of paper from the salesman just like the page in a manual that states that my engine was Factory fill w/ Mobil One 5w30 ..
So I popped the hood open and it has a Mobil One oil filler cap which makes me to believe that indeed the Factory fill in my Camaro SS is Mobil One and not "dexos".. I have an early build 2011 production Camaro with a low VIN # so they must still be using Mobil One as a Factory fill possibly to the end of this year I suppose..
Do you think I should stick with Mobil One or should I start to replace the oil now with Pennzoil Plat. which is "dexos" spec. or just keep using Mobil one until "GM" and or Chevrolet requires the use of "dexos" and notifies me with the change , I'm not sure how they will do that unless I have to just take it in for an oil change and then they will tell me then or will they issue a TSB for that when it happens ?
Thanks...
If you were following what the oil cap said I would imagine you would be alright. I haven't heard whether or not Mobil 1 plans on meeting Dexos yet. If you wanted to be entirely safe, just ask the dealer, but omit the fact that you've already changed the oil or just use Pennzoil Platinum until Mobil confirms or denies they are Dexos compliant.
Originally Posted By: lwrnccst
Do you think I should stick with Mobil One or should I start to replace the oil now with Pennzoil Plat. which is "dexos" spec.
I'd switch it over. My wife has the 2010 Camaro, and I switched it over to Penn Plat. a few days ago. Running extremely well.
Do you think I should stick with Mobil One or should I start to replace the oil now with Pennzoil Plat. which is "dexos" spec.
I'd switch it over. My wife has the 2010 Camaro, and I switched it over to Penn Plat. a few days ago. Running extremely well.
Your car seems to be a transition model. I think it might be FF with Mobil 1, but who knows maybe Mobil has a special FF? IMO Mobil 1 probably for the most part already meets Dexos, licensed or not. There is a TSB saying that the Mobil 1 oil fill caps are no longer going to be used and are being replaced with Dexos caps but this isn't going to fully happen till sometime in the fall.
I think your vehicle specifies Dexos so might as well use Dexos PP for now. Maybe later this year there will be other and maybe cheaper versions of Dexos, but PP cost no more than Mobil 1 anyway.
I think your vehicle specifies Dexos so might as well use Dexos PP for now. Maybe later this year there will be other and maybe cheaper versions of Dexos, but PP cost no more than Mobil 1 anyway.
If the same engine specs plain oil one year and a new special spec the next, chances are it's fine on the old stuff and the only thing that MIGHT have changed is the service interval or OLM setting.
One exception is the TOYOTA example, where the coolant passages were narrowed to raise op temps to achieve ULEV status.
One exception is the TOYOTA example, where the coolant passages were narrowed to raise op temps to achieve ULEV status.
I looked at the Spider Web model from Lubrizol, and, quite honestly, if you use GF-5, SN, ACEA A5/B5-08, in my opinion, you would exceed Dexos Standards by a long shot. Dexos is just a money grab by GM, in my opinion. If you don't/can't believe it, use the Lubrizol Spider-Web and check it out yourselves.
Mustang 2008Z.
Mustang 2008Z.
Interesting.
I would have NEVER questioned that Mobil would not get the "spec" and pay the fees because of their "relationship" over the years.
But for an oil company (and a major one at that) to pass raises a few questions;
1. Do they think that the motoring public will ignore it anyway and run their product?
2. Does Castrol think that the market share that GM will have in the future will not be worth going for?
3. Will there be enough cars that NEED the spec to go after?
Interesting times. It may also be the time to see how the lines are drawn in the sand. Castrol telling car MFG to stop with all the "specs" and "ratings".
Bill
I would have NEVER questioned that Mobil would not get the "spec" and pay the fees because of their "relationship" over the years.
But for an oil company (and a major one at that) to pass raises a few questions;
1. Do they think that the motoring public will ignore it anyway and run their product?
2. Does Castrol think that the market share that GM will have in the future will not be worth going for?
3. Will there be enough cars that NEED the spec to go after?
Interesting times. It may also be the time to see how the lines are drawn in the sand. Castrol telling car MFG to stop with all the "specs" and "ratings".
Bill
Honestly, I am not sure if this Dexos specs is going to be in any way far superior than upcoming API SN, ILSAC GF-5 & ACEA A1/B1 - A5/B5 specs.
I am guessing any oil meeting these specs, should be able to meet any spec GM could ever come up with...
I am guessing any oil meeting these specs, should be able to meet any spec GM could ever come up with...
Originally Posted By: kohnen
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: buster
Link
As far as I know... SOPUS and now XOM have said yes (to Dexos approval).
-Spyder
Um, so, can anyone tell me WHY I should pay a 40¢ / 5 quart jug subsidy to GM so that I can use Wal-Mart Mobil 1 in my _TOYOTA_?
There is no good answer to that. In NA we already have an existing standard everyone has to play by: API SM. Which was the whole point of it to begin with.
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: buster
Link
As far as I know... SOPUS and now XOM have said yes (to Dexos approval).
-Spyder
Um, so, can anyone tell me WHY I should pay a 40¢ / 5 quart jug subsidy to GM so that I can use Wal-Mart Mobil 1 in my _TOYOTA_?
There is no good answer to that. In NA we already have an existing standard everyone has to play by: API SM. Which was the whole point of it to begin with.
-Spyder
You never had to use a GM4718M approved oil in your Toyota either, but if you used Mobil 1 5w30, you did. I still do not understand the big deal. And unlike some specs, this is a worldwide spec by GM, not just here.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky