0W-40 or 5W-40 only

Prove it. Please, regale the forum with data showing is inferior mitigating wear in the engines is approved for, for daily driving. Better yet, in the GM 6.2.

For the other stuff, feel free to post in a firefighters forum.
Like I said, I can read. Please feel free to try.
 
Prove it. Please, regale the forum with data showing is inferior mitigating wear in the engines is approved for, for daily driving. Better yet, in the GM 6.2.

For the other stuff, feel free to post in a firefighters forum.
I won't use the word "inferior", but I will say I THINK the point @edyvw is trying to make is that it's a cheaper blended oil that you are paying the same price for; the margin is higher on it because it's blended using cheaper components. Could you use the word "inferior" to describe it based on that perspective? Sure, but from a performance perspective, since they meet the same performance specs, that becomes harder to argue without some actual back-to-back testing, which I think is the point you are making.
 
I won't use the word "inferior", but I will say I THINK the point @edyvw is trying to make is that it's a cheaper blended oil that you are paying the same price for; the margin is higher on it because it's blended using cheaper components. Could you use the word "inferior" to describe it based on that perspective? Sure, but from a performance perspective, since they meet the same performance specs, that becomes harder to argue without some actual back-to-back testing, which I think is the point you are making.
Like I said, I would use it (actually, I did a long time ago) if there were no other oils available.
 
I won't use the word "inferior", but I will say I THINK the point @edyvw is trying to make is that it's a cheaper blended oil that you are paying the same price for; the margin is higher on it because it's blended using cheaper components. Could you use the word "inferior" to describe it based on that perspective? Sure, but from a performance perspective, since they meet the same performance specs, that becomes harder to argue without some actual back-to-back testing, which I think is the point you are making.
Thanks @OVERKILL That's a lot nicer to advising to avoid it. There's nothing to avoid. We're an oil forum, not a financial advisory board.
 
I suspect none are 5W.
If you ever have access to that data I requested, please share with with the board. I will greatly appreciate it.

Thanks
Of course it is not.
UOA are not tool to measure wear. They are tool to analyze used oil. And data what is in bottles is readily available on Castrol web site.
 
Of course it is not.
UOA are not tool to measure wear. They are tool to analyze used oil. And data what is in bottles is readily available on Castrol web site.
So, they're equal? Both the 0w and the 5W claim the same approvals?

Don't recall asking for UOA.
 
So, they're equal? Both the 0w and the 5W claim the same approvals?

Don't recall asking for UOA.
As far as I know, PAO and heavy parafinic are not the same words. But I could be wrong, I mean English is my second language.
When I was working in oil company and we were blending oils for VW, we got set of minimum requirements to get VW504.00/507.00 approval. Of course, we exceed those minimum requirements. So, as I said before, MB229.5 sets minimum requirements to, not maximum. So, no, there is a difference between two oils. Particularly oils that are subject of this debate.
 
As far as I know, PAO and heavy parafinic are not the same words. But I could be wrong, I mean English is my second language.
When I was working in oil company and we were blending oils for VW, we got set of minimum requirements to get VW504.00/507.00 approval. Of course, we exceed those minimum requirements. So, as I said before, MB229.5 sets minimum requirements to, not maximum. So, no, there is a difference between two oils. Particularly oils that are subject of this debate.
And your technical expertise and opinion are golden, at least for me. You know more about Euro "specs" than 99.98% of us humans, and sharing those here deserves a big THANKS!

I just had a glitch when I read the word "avoid", next to a top approved motor oil. That's all :)
 
And your technical expertise and opinion are golden, at least for me. You know more about Euro "specs" than 99.98% of us humans, and sharing those here deserves a big THANKS!

I just had a glitch when I read the word "avoid", next to a top approved motor oil. That's all :)
When I said avoid, I meant considering other choices readily available. Eliminate those choices, and yes, I would use it too.
 
Ill never run 20wt in anything I own......been running high HP vehicles forever......most everything I run uses 40wt anyway.......even my 500hp K24 I run 20w50 in the summer at the track lol

20250504_150530.webp
 
No. I have had a few also would not explain why the 4.8 and 6.0 didn't have the same problem. The LS1, LS2, LS3, LS4 were also stout without the problem you speak of here. Now if you had said 07 and up? I would agree lots of those use oil.
Blows my mind people find a way to trash those engines. They’re literally in every make and model as far as classics on up, including foreign cars. They’re literally a blueprint for simple horsepower.
 
Soooo with all of the recent GM stock laying around on dealer lots I wonder if the dealer is going to do an oil change immediately upon purchase of the new vehicle, or wait until the first OCI, whatever mileage that may be?

That would be nice if all the dealers were proactive and pulled the trucks in for the oil change before the first test drive, but I doubt it.

Do you guys think the factory set a date for all subsequent 6.2L motors to be factory filled with the 40w? Anyone know what date that was, or if they might still be sending motors out with 20w in the oil pan?
 
Back
Top Bottom