Anyone see API SQ?
- Thread starter Navi
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 77
Yep. QSFS 5W-30 is all SQ at several Walmarts I frequent.
Castrol Edge EP at Wally.
It seem as though "P" GF-6A/6B had just arrived.
I had some Havoline conventional SQ not long ago
Decided to pour 10W-40 conventional oil in my Xterra this summer - its always run conventional or semi syn. Currently has Havoline 5W-30 in it.
Showed up in new box with SQ rating. Found that interesting - unsure why I guess. Either way, hope its good stuff. It was $23 for 6 quarts. Walmart delivered.
Showed up in new box with SQ rating. Found that interesting - unsure why I guess. Either way, hope its good stuff. It was $23 for 6 quarts. Walmart delivered.
This is not directed at you, but in general. How can API SQ improve on SP’s LSPI protection in the real world? Even on this massive board, with people laser-focused on everything oil-related, and also willing to blame the oil in many instances where it was not even a factor, I don’t think I’ve seen one single person who knows of an LSPI event that has destroyed an engine. Not even their neighbor’s cousin’s auntie’s grandson’s baby mama…
About the only way it’s possible to induce the conditions is to have a small turbo engine that’s ingesting quantities of oil vapor into the combustion chamber, lock the trans in manual mode (if it even has one), put it in waaay too high of a gear (sub-2k RPM), and then tow something up thru the Eisenhower Tunnel with the pedal on the floor. I’d love to see manufacturer-accepted or even SAE data that shows the failure rates due to LSPI vs the total population of engines they say are vulnerable to it. I bet there’s not only quite a few zeros between the decimal and first number, but also that the majority of those engines were likely neglected as well prior to their demise.
BTW, H/K engine bombs and YT videos don’t count since they’re not verifiable
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Yep, myself and others owned TDI vehicles before we even had SN Plus … don’t get me wrong - they all brought in a better balance of calcium/magnesium - things to quench - but there is likely more to the story on failure events …This is not directed at you, but in general. How can API SQ improve on SP’s LSPI protection in the real world? Even on this massive board, with people laser-focused on everything oil-related, and also willing to blame the oil in many instances where it was not even a factor, I don’t think I’ve seen one single person who knows of an LSPI event that has destroyed an engine. Not even their neighbor’s cousin’s auntie’s grandson’s baby mama…
About the only way it’s possible to induce the conditions is to have a small turbo engine that’s ingesting quantities of oil vapor into the combustion chamber, lock the trans in manual mode (if it even has one), put it in waaay too high of a gear (sub-2k RPM), and then tow something up thru the Eisenhower Tunnel with the pedal on the floor. I’d love to see manufacturer-accepted or even SAE data that shows the failure rates due to LSPI vs the total population of engines they say are vulnerable to it. I bet there’s not only quite a few zeros between the decimal and first number, but also that the majority of those engines were likely neglected as well prior to their demise.
BTW, H/K engine bombs and YT videos don’t count since they’re not verifiable
It is more about how severe than how often LSPI chunks a rod …
(and what did the “black box” say?) …
This is not directed at you, but in general. How can API SQ improve on SP’s LSPI protection in the real world? Even on this massive board, with people laser-focused on everything oil-related, and also willing to blame the oil in many instances where it was not even a factor, I don’t think I’ve seen one single person who knows of an LSPI event that has destroyed an engine. Not even their neighbor’s cousin’s auntie’s grandson’s baby mama…
About the only way it’s possible to induce the conditions is to have a small turbo engine that’s ingesting quantities of oil vapor into the combustion chamber, lock the trans in manual mode (if it even has one), put it in waaay too high of a gear (sub-2k RPM), and then tow something up thru the Eisenhower Tunnel with the pedal on the floor. I’d love to see manufacturer-accepted or even SAE data that shows the failure rates due to LSPI vs the total population of engines they say are vulnerable to it. I bet there’s not only quite a few zeros between the decimal and first number, but also that the majority of those engines were likely neglected as well prior to their demise.
BTW, H/K engine bombs and YT videos don’t count since they’re not verifiable
As I understand it, Toyota found that LSPI, caused by oil, was damaging engines, which started the oil evolution to control the event. I don't think they made this up. And Toyota isn't big on turbos, at least in the US market. Anyway, I'm curious what chemical changes are in SQ. Even more Calcium reduction? And what additive to reduce cam chain wear? Moly?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
All of those are addressed in AP SP except maybe the vague ""updated and more rigorous engine tests". SN+ was the first API standard to address LSPI for example, and ultra low viscosity support emerged with GF-6A and GF-6B.Brief overview about API SQ for those not in the know {quote from Google }
Engine technology has advanced rapidly, leading to different lubrication needs than in the past. The API SQ standard, launched on March 31, 2025, is the latest specification, succeeding API SP.
API SQ offers several advantages over API SP for modern engines:
Overall, API SQ improves upon API SP with enhanced protection against LSPI, better timing chain wear control, support for ultra-low viscosity oils, and stricter emission and cleanliness controls. These advancements help meet the needs of modern engines, contributing to improved fuel economy, lower emissions, and longer engine life.
- LSPI Protection: API SQ addresses Low-Speed Pre-Ignition (LSPI), an issue that can damage turbocharged engines.
- Timing Chain Wear Control: API SQ oils use optimized additives to reduce timing chain wear and extend engine life.
- Ultra-Low Viscosity Support: API SQ supports SAE 0W-8 and SAE 0W-12 grades, which improve fuel efficiency.
- Emission Compliance: The standard limits sulfated ash content to 0.9% by mass, which helps protect Gasoline Particulate Filters (GPFs) and reduce particulate emissions.
- Engine Testing: API SQ includes updated and more rigorous engine tests for better performance assurance.
This is why we don't go with "AI" answers.
Complaint registered. Question remains: what's new about SQ?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Going by Infineum, it was Ford and GM that approached them about determining the causes of LSPI in the North American market, and finding solutions, as both marques were planning on introducing small TGDI engines that were likely to suffer from the phenomena:
https://www.infineuminsight.com/en-gb/articles/investigating-low-speed-pre-ignition/
Back when SN+ or whatever (0W-16) came out there was ILSACGF6A and B
"A" was essentially unchanged when we went to SP - is my understanding. - grades 20 and thicker.
"B" was somehow better - the very low viscosity grades.
Is this still the same? My 10W-40 conventional is still pretty much SN with a new logo?
"A" was essentially unchanged when we went to SP - is my understanding. - grades 20 and thicker.
"B" was somehow better - the very low viscosity grades.
Is this still the same? My 10W-40 conventional is still pretty much SN with a new logo?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Well, let's compare:
Looks like:
- They added ASTM D4684, which tests the MRV of new oil, rather than just the used oil (ASTM D8111/D7528)
- 0W-8 and 0W-12 now have to pass shear stability tests. Them, and 0W-16 are still omitted from stay-in-grade.
- Sulfated Ash is now a parameter
- They've brought back the Sequence IVA test to run alongside Sequence IVB
- They've added an "aged" variation to the Sequence IX test
- Parameters for Sequence IIIH are now carved out for 0W-8 and 0W-12, which are allowed a greater increase in viscosity and more piston deposits. The standard for xW-20+ has been increased for piston deposits under the same test
- Fuel economy standard under Sequence VIE has increased for xW-20/xW-30 and 10W-30 +
- Fuel economy standard under Sequence VIF has increased for 0W-16
- Sequence X - Timing chain elongation under ASTM D8279 has now carved out 0W-8 and 0W-12, keeping them to the old standard, xW-20+ grades are more strict
- Two new fuel economy tests: JASO M365 and M366 have been added for 0W-8 and 0W-12 grades exclusively
It's my understanding is that Toyota is the first company to discover that oil was contributing to the problem, and they published a paper to that effect Toyota’s SAE 2013-01-2569
Is this wrong? I don't know. I came to learn this on this forum, though.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Infineum said they knew about it since 2007.
The SWRI consortium, launched in 2010, was looking into oil, and fuel, as contributing factors and already working on mitigation strategies, as detailed here in 2010:
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/10/p3-20101007.html
Perhaps Toyota was the first company in Asia to be working on this?
What took them so long? SP was released in 2020.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
SN+ (2017) was the first API category to address LSPI, but yes, it took them ages to develop a reliable test for it.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
VW knew about it in mid 2000. EA113 1.4 TSFI engine with both turbo and supercharger was prone to LSPI.
They addressed that with engineering changes, which is how it should be done.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
And API made more mess with lowering ZDDP in API SM and later.
I am firmly in the camp of: Your engine will NOT know the difference.
Similar threads
- Locked