GM is running their dexos licensing program in-house

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
16,032
Location
USA
Awhile ago, Somebody else on here noticed that GM's dexos licensing program was scrubbed from the Center for Quality Assurance website, and that also gmdexos.com no longer works. I emailed CQA asking them why, and they informed me that GM has taken their dexos licensing program in-house.

I was going to just reply to the earlier thread, but I could not find it.
 
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Awhile ago, Somebody else on here noticed that GM's dexos licensing program was scrubbed from the Center for Quality Assurance website, and that also gmdexos.com no longer works. I emailed CQA asking them why, and they informed me that GM has taken their dexos licensing program in-house.

I was going to just reply to the earlier thread, but I could not find it.



I noticed that today when I was trying to find some answers. I knew the links worked a few weeks ago. I wonder what's going on and why they did that? Money?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: jcartwright99
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Awhile ago, Somebody else on here noticed that GM's dexos licensing program was scrubbed from the Center for Quality Assurance website, and that also gmdexos.com no longer works. I emailed CQA asking them why, and they informed me that GM has taken their dexos licensing program in-house.

I was going to just reply to the earlier thread, but I could not find it.



I noticed that today when I was trying to find some answers. I knew the links worked a few weeks ago. I wonder what's going on and why they did that? Money?


Money not so much likely but keeping you in the dark would be a better guess.
 
Hootbro has it right. Third party certification is the ONLY way to give believable evidence to the public! Taking it "in house" opens up the doors for fudging or falsifying data, etc. First it is "well, .49 rounds up to five", Then it gets to be that .46 rounds up to .50" then anything over .45 rounds up, etc. My thinking....no longer trust the published numbers or GM saying it conforms to Dexos certification levels. There is a reason they did this and it is more than money!!!
 
Or maybe GM mistrusted the job that the third party lab was doing. It is already a proprietary certification owned by GM and invented by them.
 
There are certainly very excellent third party labs. When I worked, we did a third party certification on our insulation products for fire performance and water vapor transmission. We kept to a very tight formulation to achieve this and it differentiated us very clearly from our competitors who did their own "certification." If they don't "trust" their third party lab, it probably means that they are coming back on GM and saying they are not meeting published figures.So... take it in house.
 
My guess is, they may be changing their standard on the fly to make some oil or additives pass, and they are writing the spec as they are testing.

Probably won't be a big deal for the big guys, but small boutiques may have problem competing. It could also means GM has no idea what they are doing and still finding new problems.
 
Noticed the listing gone last week from CQA. And GM in house listing doing an excellent job replacing it. http://www.gmdexos.com/owner/brands/
smirk.gif
 
So, what's all this mean exactly, GM gets to decide whose oil qualifies as meeting/exceeding their D1G2 oil requirements to be run in there vehicles?

If I am understanding this correctly, anyone want to bet now that only/mostly Mobil-1 oils will be able to meet that standard?
coffee2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac
I've always thought SN+ covered everything d1G2 did ?


I've thought the same and thought this new G2 requirement was just a bunch of bunk or another way to extort money.

It's too early yet, as far as I know, to conclusively prove anything and if this new D1G2 oil is actually helping LSPI like it was supposedly designed to do.
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Ive always thought SN+ covered everything d1G2 did ?


Maybe, but SN+ just came out now. d1g2 has been out since 2015
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: jcartwright99
Yet another reason to use the UOA's found here as evidence what works best for your DI engine.

This is where we have to be careful and not let the cart get in front of the horse. If UOA results are better than certifications, then we might as well ignore the certifications altogether?
 
The second generation Dexos approval was in response to LSPI. It is a legitimate standard to meet. Just like the API SN plus is has well.
 
Originally Posted By: bbhero
The second generation Dexos approval was in response to LSPI. It is a legitimate standard to meet. Just like the API SN plus is has well.




That’s my understanding as well and didn’t SN+ add timing chain antiwear specs?

So the bigger question might be, is dexos a duplicate spec now that SN+ is here? GovMo of course would like to keep it relative if it’s making money for them from the licensing fees.
 
Actually I believe Dexos still is a tougher specification to meet vs regular API SN+. Lower volatility less than 13%, less cam shaft wear(I believe) and a couple of other measurables as well.

So... On my tier of specs..

Porsche A40 #1
MB 229.5 #2
BMW LL-01 #3
ACEA A3/B4 #4
ACEA A5/B5 #5
Dexos gen 2 ( is tied with the ACEA A5) #5
API SN+ #6
API SN #7
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Actually I believe Dexos still is a tougher specification to meet vs regular API SN+. Lower volatility less than 13%, less cam shaft wear(I believe) and a couple of other measurables as well.

So... On my tier of specs..

Porsche A40 #1
MB 229.5 #2
BMW LL-01 #3
ACEA A3/B4 #4
ACEA A5/B5 #5
Dexos gen 2 #5
API SN+ #6
API SN #7





Good to know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top