Dexos 1 Gen 2?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
794
Location
Phila, PA
I understand the new formulation benefits of Dexos 1 Gen 2 by the oil companies to minimized LSPI events is better for engines that are Direct Injected, especially turbo direct injected.

BUT! Is this new formulation also better for port injected engines (non-direct injected)? Not pre-ignition wise, but lubrication wise.

It seems as with some of the newest formulations, some have mentioned a cheapened/lesser product with shearing/viscosity loss, low temp pour point is not as good, etc. Possibly due to the new GTL base stocks?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for asking this question! I've been wanting to ask this as well. The reduction in calcium as me worried, but I guess it's not a big deal since all companies are adopting this standard it seems. There isn't really a choice now to have a synthetic GF-5 oil that is not Dexos 1 Gen 2
 
The reduction in calcium is usually offset by increases in other detergent components, magnesium being one.
 
GM in Europe spec Dexos 2 for all gas and light diesel engines even in climates similar to the the US north east even for the same engines available in US. I think its a fair question to ask why.
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac
The reduction in calcium is usually offset by increases in other detergent components, magnesium being one.



Yes, the D1G2 seem to have pretty good magnesium and molybdenum numbers.
 
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
Originally Posted By: PimTac
The reduction in calcium is usually offset by increases in other detergent components, magnesium being one.



Yes, the D1G2 seem to have pretty good magnesium and molybdenum numbers.


If anyone has seen problems with UOA’s from D1G2 oils, please post them because so far I have not seen any problems.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: zfasts03
I understand the new formulation benefits of Dexos 1 Gen 2 by the oil companies to minimized LSPI events is better for engines that are Direct Injected, especially turbo direct injected.

BUT! Is this new formulation also better for port injected engines (non-direct injected)? Not pre-ignition wise, but lubrication wise.

It seems as with some of the newest formulations, some have mentioned a cheapened/lesser product with shearing/viscosity loss, low temp pour point is not as good, etc. Possibly due to the new GTL base stocks?

If you look up what the new oils need to meet how can some say they are a in anyway a lesser oil?
 
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
Originally Posted By: PimTac
The reduction in calcium is usually offset by increases in other detergent components, magnesium being one.



Yes, the D1G2 seem to have pretty good magnesium and molybdenum numbers.


If anyone has seen problems with UOA’s from D1G2 oils, please post them because so far I have not seen any problems.




I don’t think we would be able to trace any issue back to the oil itself unless we see a wider trend like older cars sludging up. Even then it would be difficult to blame the oil as there are too many variables to consider.

I for one think the move has improved the oils. The idea that more of something means it is better is a misnomer. We see lots of uoa’s here from oils with hardly any add pack yet the numbers are excellent.
 
The Dexos1 Gen2 spec addresses timing chain wear as well as LSPI. Something to consider even for older port-injected engines.
 
My concerns with these new formulations are the low levels of zddp and in my application 5w30 they're so thin now! Is there any chance that in an older V8 like my gm 5.3 will i see increased wear due to the lower viscosity?
 
It would be good to know the hths specs between old D1 and new D1G2 formulations. For timing chain wear I would assume a higher hths.
 
Valvoline’s reformulation bumped their HTHS on the 0w20 from 2.6 to 2.7. That may not seem like much but it’s still a 4-5% increase which is something. This is one example but I suspect we may see similar results among the other companies as well.

The other standout change is the use of titanium in the add pack.
 
Originally Posted By: turnbowm
The Dexos1 Gen2 spec addresses timing chain wear as well as LSPI. Something to consider even for older port-injected engines.


I think part of the reason for added timing chain wear protection is the soot all DI engines produce that winds up in sump oil. Still, added protection can’t be a bad thing.
 
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: turnbowm
The Dexos1 Gen2 spec addresses timing chain wear as well as LSPI. Something to consider even for older port-injected engines.


I think part of the reason for added timing chain wear protection is the soot all DI engines produce that winds up in sump oil. Still, added protection can’t be a bad thing.


Good argument for more frequent OCIs.
 
Originally Posted By: Danh
I think part of the reason for added timing chain wear protection is the soot all DI engines produce that winds up in sump oil.


Do you have any UOAs that back up that assumption? Soot typically is something a diesel engine deals with. Fuel dilution in T/GDI, sure, but no soot. I think most of the reason for timing chain wear is the low HTHS oils more than anything- there are millions of SBCs/BBCs/SBFs running around for hundreds of millions of miles without the issues seen on timing chains on today's new cars. Chains are essentially still the same as they ever have been, the only real thing to change in that ecosystem is the oil lubricating the whole mess.
 
Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Originally Posted By: Danh
I think part of the reason for added timing chain wear protection is the soot all DI engines produce that winds up in sump oil.


Do you have any UOAs that back up that assumption? Soot typically is something a diesel engine deals with. Fuel dilution in T/GDI, sure, but no soot. I think most of the reason for timing chain wear is the low HTHS oils more than anything- there are millions of SBCs/BBCs/SBFs running around for hundreds of millions of miles without the issues seen on timing chains on today's new cars. Chains are essentially still the same as they ever have been, the only real thing to change in that ecosystem is the oil lubricating the whole mess.


Or more importantly the reduction in HTHS as a result of fuel dilution. The dilution in the changed variable IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
... I think most of the reason for timing chain wear is the low HTHS oils more than anything- ...
Why do you feel HTHS is especially relevant to chain wear? Chains shouldn't be as hot as oil in bearings. We have other recent threads claiming base oil viscosity (and thus "x" in the xW-Y viscosity category) correlates with chain wear.
 
I’m sure timing chain materials and design have improved over the years but the few I’ve seen in pictures look like they came off a old Schwinn bicycle. The old chains were wide and of different design. How this plays in the timing chain wear argument is for the engineers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top