Anyone ‘excited’ for API SP/GF-6?

Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
16,020
Location
Canada
I mean, it's kinda why we are here...it is the first ‘new' API spec in 10 years.

Do you think SP oils will look a lot different than SN oils?

Will it show much better wear results? Will there be some brand-new additive they use?

Bring slightly cynical, I think they will look the exact same as SN-plus oils...I think we have come almost as far as we can with additive tech, and the parameters are still the same (zinc and phos at 800ppm, for example, moly over sorta 200ppm doesn't help..etc)

Discuss!
 
Yep. Heard they also protects/prevent timing chain wear better than the GF-5 oils.
 
I will "Discuss"
grin2.gif


I never buy any first time thing to the market for example any "totally redesigned" cars ... If this oil is out for 2-3 years and no engine blows up and/or if no SP+ enhancement comes out, then I may consider. Assuming the oil meets my viscosity, hths, Noack, etc. requirements.

I am still considering a Castrol a3/b4 SL for a relatively new car so I don't care about Sx.
 
I am more excited about the great deals that should happen to clear out of GF-5 stock. Many oil companies are stating that they expect their existing formulations to already meet GF-6 on launch. Whether that is true is up for debate.
 
*No 0W20 for you ?
Originally Posted by FordCapriDriver
Nope, don't want any of that newfangled oily water anywhere near my engines.
 
Yep, I'm eager to begin reading and testing the new chapters. Kind' wish I didn't still have 3 five quart jugs of SN Plus in stash..
That means I'm currently all set until November at-least..... maybe even April 2021. We don't drive as much anymore. Our oil changes are less frequent, even at 4-5k OCIs.
 
Originally Posted by addguyy
I think we have come almost as far as we can with additive tech

Seems like oil is always playing catch up as engines change. While I don't think were done with additive tech I do think it will slow down even more.

Originally Posted by addguyy
and the parameters are still the same (zinc and phos at 800ppm, for example, moly over sorta 200ppm doesn't help..etc)

Discuss!

You should check out the VOA section over the last couple years, hardly any SN/+ oils have those levels of ZDDP any more. This is one reason I like Valvoline Advanced.
 
Years ago there was a BITOG rush to snap up all the SL oil before it was replaced by SM; in retrospect it seems foolish

Probably the same with SP; SN and + seems to be a fantastic fit for my cars but i have to issue just using the next spec. Gone are the high zinc days for most of us...

"I need high zinc" is throw onto the pile of "what base oil" for many of us; it just doesn't matter for a majority of new vehicles
 
Last edited:
What new requirement specs have come into play between GF-5 and GF-6?
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
My guess is that if anyone has bought oil recently they may already have the new spec. The companies cannot label it as such until the specified date.

With ExxonMobil oils there is no guessing. There is a four-digit revision number (RN number) in the date stamps that tells you what the formulation is. It would be nice if someone went to Walmart and recorded these for the SN/SN PLUS ExxonMobil oils. This way we would know if the SP formulations are different or not.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
What new requirement specs have come into play between GF-5 and GF-6?


I think most of the major oil companies have posted on their websites the oil they are selling right now will meet gf-6 specs. Found this on infineuminsight website.

ILSAC GF-6 limits
[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]


they have more articles on GF-6 at infineuminsight.
 
The fuel-economy improvement will probably result in the SP oils having a higher VII content and a higher viscosity index (VI) than the SN/SN PLUS oils.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
The fuel-economy improvement will probably result in the SP oils having a higher VII content and a higher viscosity index (VI) than the SN/SN PLUS oils.


Well that's not promising
 
Back
Top