Recent Topics
Beneficial clean fuel.injectors in Ultrasonic Cleaner
by JLawrence08648. 12/15/18 06:54 PM
Back to Basics III
by MolaKule. 12/15/18 05:30 PM
Castrol Edge 0W40 vs. 5W40...Liqui Moly?
by TiGeo. 12/15/18 04:56 PM
Schumacher XCS15 voltage
by sweezy722. 12/15/18 04:19 PM
Solar battery tenders?
by slybunda. 12/15/18 04:10 PM
Bad Fuel Pressure Regulator.
by NICAT. 12/15/18 04:07 PM
Misfire = clogged cat
by Eric Smith. 12/15/18 04:00 PM
Cellphone Reliability
by Warstud. 12/15/18 03:29 PM
No email notification of replies anymore?
by atikovi. 12/15/18 03:07 PM
Crane EE 5301 Humidifier
by maverickfhs. 12/15/18 02:38 PM
I have sinned
by 901Memphis. 12/15/18 01:57 PM
Milwaukee m12 in vanhaus ratchet
by pda1122. 12/15/18 01:19 PM
Klein dikes
by Donald. 12/15/18 01:03 PM
Help Soldering 3.5mm mono microphone plug
by Brybo86. 12/15/18 01:02 PM
Small Trolling Motors
by wings&wheels. 12/15/18 12:49 PM
Toyota Corolla, good and bad?
by jongies3. 12/15/18 12:35 PM
Mixing oils
by bfleeman. 12/15/18 10:51 AM
Newest Members
Spkrdctr, torchredone12, JNG, Edmundo, NEKGuy
66688 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
88 registered members (Anduril, 69GTX, ammolab, Al, -SyN-, 53' Stude, 13 invisible), 1,957 guests, and 30 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics295,125
Posts4,928,180
Members66,688
Most Online2,553
Oct 27th, 2018
Donate to BITOG
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
SN+ ? #4517266
09/15/17 04:43 PM
09/15/17 04:43 PM
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,292
Douglas County, Colorado
bigj_16 Offline OP
bigj_16  Offline OP
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,292
Douglas County, Colorado
Just reading this over at the Infineum site:
"ILSAC delivered a letter to API stating the need for protection against Low Speed Pre Ignition (LSPI) for new engines being introduced into the market. Due to the delays to ILSAC GF-6, OEMs are requesting a supplement to the current API SN specification to include an LSPI test to deliver turbocharger protection. API LG agreed to accept and progress this request. While OEMs desire January 1 2018, this date has not been agreed by API LG. ACC and API Oil Marketers need to review the supplement description and timing required for the steps to deliver the API SN Plus supplement - with which ILSAC GF-5 can also be claimed."

Last edited by bigj_16; 09/15/17 04:44 PM.
Re: SN+ ? [Re: bigj_16] #4517541
09/16/17 12:15 AM
09/16/17 12:15 AM
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,228
Europe
SonofJoe Offline
SonofJoe  Offline
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,228
Europe
I just can't see this happening. Just think about it for a while...

You adopt an LSPI test (say for example it's the one from Dexos Gen 2). You test your existing oil GF-5 oil. It might pass, in which case everything is fine and dandy and hey presto, you have a GF-5+/SN+ oil to market.

However, chances are the existing oil (especially if it's a full Group II oil) will fail the LSPI test. You'll then have to reformulate the oil. Maybe a bit more synthetic base oil or a detergent switch will get you through the test. However this would then require you to then revisit all of the other GF-5 tests to prove your new formulation doesn't negatively impact on some other aspect of oil performance. And there's the rub. Many of these tests are no longer available. So what do you do?

Even if all the old tests were available, there would be great resistance to this proposal. GF-6 has been a long time coming. However after all this time, it's probably safe to say it IS going to arrive in the next two or three years. If what ILSAC is asking for now was agreed to, the oil companies and AddCo's would have to go though an expensive reformulation exercise for GF-5+ but this might only last a year or two before they had to reformulate all over again for GF-6 proper.

ILSAC might have a loud voice but what it doesn't do is PAY for anything; that's what the oil and additive industry do. On this occasion, I (rightly) think that he who pays the piper will call the tune.

Re: SN+ ? [Re: SonofJoe] #4517652
09/16/17 07:37 AM
09/16/17 07:37 AM
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,292
Douglas County, Colorado
bigj_16 Offline OP
bigj_16  Offline OP
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,292
Douglas County, Colorado
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I just can't see this happening. Just think about it for a while...

You adopt an LSPI test (say for example it's the one from Dexos Gen 2). You test your existing oil GF-5 oil. It might pass, in which case everything is fine and dandy and hey presto, you have a GF-5+/SN+ oil to market.

However, chances are the existing oil (especially if it's a full Group II oil) will fail the LSPI test. You'll then have to reformulate the oil. Maybe a bit more synthetic base oil or a detergent switch will get you through the test. However this would then require you to then revisit all of the other GF-5 tests to prove your new formulation doesn't negatively impact on some other aspect of oil performance. And there's the rub. Many of these tests are no longer available. So what do you do?

Even if all the old tests were available, there would be great resistance to this proposal. GF-6 has been a long time coming. However after all this time, it's probably safe to say it IS going to arrive in the next two or three years. If what ILSAC is asking for now was agreed to, the oil companies and AddCo's would have to go though an expensive reformulation exercise for GF-5+ but this might only last a year or two before they had to reformulate all over again for GF-6 proper.

ILSAC might have a loud voice but what it doesn't do is PAY for anything; that's what the oil and additive industry do. On this occasion, I (rightly) think that he who pays the piper will call the tune.

Well thought out.

Re: SN+ ? [Re: bigj_16] #4519115
09/18/17 03:26 AM
09/18/17 03:26 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 794
UK
weasley Offline
weasley  Offline
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 794
UK
GF-5+ is a real thing under real scrutiny, driven not by ILSAC but by the OEMs. Some OEMs already have LSPI requirements in their own approvals, so reformulating is already done. It is possible that GF-5+ could run alongside GF-5, meaning you can choose whether or not to 'upgrade', whilst keeping your 'heritage' formulations to serve the majority of cars that don't need LSPI protection.


2017 SEAT Leon 1.4 EcoTSI 150 FR Technology DSG
2018 Volvo XC60 D4
2011 KTM 990 SMT
Re: SN+ ? [Re: weasley] #4519223
09/18/17 07:32 AM
09/18/17 07:32 AM
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,228
Europe
SonofJoe Offline
SonofJoe  Offline
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,228
Europe
Originally Posted By: weasley
GF-5+ is a real thing under real scrutiny, driven not by ILSAC but by the OEMs. Some OEMs already have LSPI requirements in their own approvals, so reformulating is already done. It is possible that GF-5+ could run alongside GF-5, meaning you can choose whether or not to 'upgrade', whilst keeping your 'heritage' formulations to serve the majority of cars that don't need LSPI protection.


If that's the outcome, then it can only be good for US customers. I've never been convinced of the merits of the US system which euthanises the old oil category within months of launching the new one (under cover of the increasingly dubious fig leaf of 'backwards compatibility'). The US might be The Land Of The Free, but when it comes to oil, customers have very little choice other than to pick from fifty cans of ostensibly the same thing.

Of course, it begs the question, if is was so easy to reformulate GF-5 oils to pass LSPI requirements (presumably we're talking synthetics?), was there a genuine issue with existing oils in the first place? Call me an old cynic, but I can't help feel that the overly neurotic US OEMs have made a gargantuan mountain over a miniscule molehill.

Last edited by SonofJoe; 09/18/17 07:32 AM.
Re: SN+ ? [Re: bigj_16] #4519752
09/18/17 07:36 PM
09/18/17 07:36 PM
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,566
MN
oil_film_movies Offline
oil_film_movies  Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,566
MN
All the engine makers currently recommending SN GF-5 oils should simply recommend any dexos1 Gen2 oil. Problem solved. Politically incorrect, but solved. LSPI is coverd. We don't need GF-6 anymore.

Re: SN+ ? [Re: SonofJoe] #4519762
09/18/17 07:46 PM
09/18/17 07:46 PM
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,566
MN
oil_film_movies Offline
oil_film_movies  Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,566
MN
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Of course, it begs the question, if is was so easy to reformulate GF-5 oils to pass LSPI requirements (presumably we're talking synthetics?), was there a genuine issue with existing oils in the first place? Call me an old cynic, but I can't help feel that the overly neurotic US OEMs have made a gargantuan mountain over a miniscule molehill.
I did notice LSPI in a DI 3.6L GM engine a few years ago. GM obviously was worried about it too! I guess they don't want the engine problems affecting their warranty costs.
I don't think it matters too much if synthetic or not (??). Maybe a simple change to a mixed Mg/Ca detergent formulation might be enough to do it.
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/nov-2016/quenching-low-speed-pre-ignition

Re: SN+ ? [Re: bigj_16] #4519971
09/19/17 02:58 AM
09/19/17 02:58 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 794
UK
weasley Offline
weasley  Offline
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 794
UK
Perhaps worth adding that the proposed GF-5+ is also adding in cover for 0W-16.


2017 SEAT Leon 1.4 EcoTSI 150 FR Technology DSG
2018 Volvo XC60 D4
2011 KTM 990 SMT
Re: SN+ ? [Re: SonofJoe] #4520071
09/19/17 07:00 AM
09/19/17 07:00 AM
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,438
New England
Virtus_Probi Offline
Virtus_Probi  Offline
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,438
New England
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: weasley
GF-5+ is a real thing under real scrutiny, driven not by ILSAC but by the OEMs. Some OEMs already have LSPI requirements in their own approvals, so reformulating is already done. It is possible that GF-5+ could run alongside GF-5, meaning you can choose whether or not to 'upgrade', whilst keeping your 'heritage' formulations to serve the majority of cars that don't need LSPI protection.


If that's the outcome, then it can only be good for US customers. I've never been convinced of the merits of the US system which euthanises the old oil category within months of launching the new one (under cover of the increasingly dubious fig leaf of 'backwards compatibility'). The US might be The Land Of The Free, but when it comes to oil, customers have very little choice other than to pick from fifty cans of ostensibly the same thing.

Of course, it begs the question, if is was so easy to reformulate GF-5 oils to pass LSPI requirements (presumably we're talking synthetics?), was there a genuine issue with existing oils in the first place? Call me an old cynic, but I can't help feel that the overly neurotic US OEMs have made a gargantuan mountain over a miniscule molehill.


One of the additive manufacturers posted a summary of test results online that claimed that a small quantity of sodium in the presence of calcium was a major accelerant for LSPI (I looked it up, Infineum said that adding 420ppm of sodium to an oil with 1590ppm of calcium almost doubled the occurrence of LSPI events), so I'd suspect that it was the sodium based oils that urgently needed to be changed. With what little I know, I'd have to guess that an oil like 2013-vintage M1 5W30 could have cruised through dexos1 Gen 2 LSPI testing without reformulation.
Given that Hyundai Veloster Turbos, Subaru WRXs/FXTs (including mine), and Chevy Malibus have all been recalled due to the threat of severe engine damage from LSPI, I'd say it is a multinational mountain and not a US molehill!


2014 Forester XT, 90000 miles
Last Change;
M1 5W30 d1G2
Tokyo Roki 15208AA170 filter
Re: SN+ ? [Re: Virtus_Probi] #4520076
09/19/17 07:11 AM
09/19/17 07:11 AM
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,566
MN
oil_film_movies Offline
oil_film_movies  Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,566
MN
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
One of the additive manufacturers posted a summary of test results online that claimed that a small quantity of sodium in the presence of calcium was a major accelerant for LSPI (I looked it up, Infineum said that adding 420ppm of sodium to an oil with 1590ppm of calcium almost doubled the occurrence of LSPI events), so I'd suspect that it was the sodium based oils that urgently needed to be changed.

Valvoline Synpower dexos1 Gen2, is the only one labelled Gen2 on the shelf now at Walmart. Its always been a sodium oil in the past. It currently passes the new LSPI tests, so maybe Valvoline reformulated????

Re: SN+ ? [Re: oil_film_movies] #4520114
09/19/17 08:04 AM
09/19/17 08:04 AM
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,438
New England
Virtus_Probi Offline
Virtus_Probi  Offline
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,438
New England
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
One of the additive manufacturers posted a summary of test results online that claimed that a small quantity of sodium in the presence of calcium was a major accelerant for LSPI (I looked it up, Infineum said that adding 420ppm of sodium to an oil with 1590ppm of calcium almost doubled the occurrence of LSPI events), so I'd suspect that it was the sodium based oils that urgently needed to be changed.

Valvoline Synpower dexos1 Gen2, is the only one labelled Gen2 on the shelf now at Walmart. Its always been a sodium oil in the past. It currently passes the new LSPI tests, so maybe Valvoline reformulated????


That is a great question!!
The new Valvoline data sheets released 9/7 have much less info than the ones they replaced...they used to give calcium and sodium concentrations, now there is nothing about them. Not too long ago, a poster here was told by Valvoline customer service that the Synpower line would not be dexos1 Gen 2 licensed but a new line just called Full Synthetic would...but, now we see Synpower Gen 2 jugs.
I guess a big X factor for me is that I haven't seen anything about how stringent the dexos1 Gen 2 test really is...could oil formulations that might be considered problematic going by the additive manufacturers' published articles pass the test without any trouble?
One very interesting thing I have read on BITOG is that the oil manufacturers can buy premixed additive packages that will be certified by their makers to result in oils that meet certain standards when mixed appropriately with specified base stocks. I guess this gives oil companies a simple "plug and chug" solution to new standards at the expense of having nothing to differentiate themselves from other makers beyond marketing.


2014 Forester XT, 90000 miles
Last Change;
M1 5W30 d1G2
Tokyo Roki 15208AA170 filter
Re: SN+ ? [Re: weasley] #4520116
09/19/17 08:07 AM
09/19/17 08:07 AM
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,228
Europe
SonofJoe Offline
SonofJoe  Offline
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,228
Europe
Originally Posted By: weasley
Perhaps worth adding that the proposed GF-5+ is also adding in cover for 0W-16.


Ah, that makes more sense; quietly sneaking 0W16 in through the back door.

Of course, if 0W16 GF5+ now gets specced by the US OEMs for new models, even if just a few folks experience field problems (most probably due to the effects of fuel dilution on a 0W16), expect a cacophony of shrill voices screaming that the OEMs should have waited until GF-6 was fully ready and not by-passed the tried and tested procedure. Bad for anyone who goes down the GF-5+ road but great for the lawyers! Time will tell I suppose.

Oh, and I pulled this up on Google. It seems to be a list of oils approved to Dexos 1 Gen 2...

http://www.centerforqa.com/dexos-brand2015/

Eyeballing the list, it looks like the great bulk of these are full synthetics or heavily synthetic blends. Did any all Group II oils make the list? I rather think not but will happily be corrected.

Last edited by SonofJoe; 09/19/17 08:10 AM.
Re: SN+ ? [Re: SonofJoe] #4520134
09/19/17 08:31 AM
09/19/17 08:31 AM
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,566
MN
oil_film_movies Offline
oil_film_movies  Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,566
MN
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Oh, and I pulled this up on Google. It seems to be a list of oils approved to Dexos 1 Gen 2... http://www.centerforqa.com/dexos-brand2015/ Eyeballing the list, it looks like the great bulk of these are full synthetics or heavily synthetic blends. Did any all Group II oils make the list? I rather think not but will happily be corrected.

I think the Group II's can't pass the weighted piston deposits and NOACK required by the dexos1 Gen1 and Gen2. Open this document: http://www.aftonchemical.com/Afton/media/PdfFiles/Specification_Handbook.pdf then search ( Ctrl-f ) for dexos, and you'll see the requirements are pretty strict beyond SN GF-5.

Re: SN+ ? [Re: oil_film_movies] #4520178
09/19/17 09:34 AM
09/19/17 09:34 AM
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,292
Douglas County, Colorado
bigj_16 Offline OP
bigj_16  Offline OP
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,292
Douglas County, Colorado
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Oh, and I pulled this up on Google. It seems to be a list of oils approved to Dexos 1 Gen 2... http://www.centerforqa.com/dexos-brand2015/ Eyeballing the list, it looks like the great bulk of these are full synthetics or heavily synthetic blends. Did any all Group II oils make the list? I rather think not but will happily be corrected.

I think the Group II's can't pass the weighted piston deposits and NOACK required by the dexos1 Gen1 and Gen2. Open this document: http://www.aftonchemical.com/Afton/media/PdfFiles/Specification_Handbook.pdf then search ( Ctrl-f ) for dexos, and you'll see the requirements are pretty strict beyond SN GF-5.
Thanx!

Re: SN+ ? [Re: oil_film_movies] #4520205
09/19/17 10:19 AM
09/19/17 10:19 AM
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,228
Europe
SonofJoe Offline
SonofJoe  Offline
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,228
Europe
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Oh, and I pulled this up on Google. It seems to be a list of oils approved to Dexos 1 Gen 2... http://www.centerforqa.com/dexos-brand2015/ Eyeballing the list, it looks like the great bulk of these are full synthetics or heavily synthetic blends. Did any all Group II oils make the list? I rather think not but will happily be corrected.

I think the Group II's can't pass the weighted piston deposits and NOACK required by the dexos1 Gen1 and Gen2. Open this document: http://www.aftonchemical.com/Afton/media/PdfFiles/Specification_Handbook.pdf then search ( Ctrl-f ) for dexos, and you'll see the requirements are pretty strict beyond SN GF-5.



I don't know for sure but I suspect you could make 13% max Noack and get 4.5 min WPD on the IIIG with some of the better Group IIs that are around (sadly you won't find these in the US). However even these oils would struggle to pass the Peugeot TU5; especially if you're forced to drop to a lower SSI VII to make the Bosch shear requirements of the original dexos1. In which case everything on the list will be predominantly Group III or better (so close to full synthetic).

I haven't yet seen the detailed dexos1 Gen 2 spec (the one that contains the LSPI test) but I might hazard a guess that the great majority of dexos1 original oils; even the full Calcium ones, pass the LSPI test, simply because they're full synthetic. If that was the case, then it might be significant because GF-5 data sets will exist for these oils (the kind of data set you can't generate today because half the tests are unavailable).

If this were so, you have a route by which GF5+ oils become a lesser but similar subset of dexos1 Gen1 oils but with just sufficient Group III in the oil to squeak you through the LSPI test. I can see how that might fit and allow GF5+ to launch. The outcome would be that GDI engines, by definition, use near full synthetic GF-5+ oils leaving existing GF-5 Group II oils for the plebs (which is the great bulk of the US market uses and what the US base oil infrastructure can physically supply).

Of course such a move, by splitting the market, would badly undercut the basis for GF-6 which preached 'LSPI protection for all'. I suspect GF-6 will happen because so much effort has already been sunk into it but it's a lot of mega-bucks to be spending on a problem that may have already been solved by alternative means.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™