API has approved the SN spec. Licensing will begin on October 1, 2010.
http://www.imakenews.com/eletra/mod_prin...mp;uid=b1M25KBS
http://www.imakenews.com/eletra/mod_prin...mp;uid=b1M25KBS
API Approves SN
- Thread starter Johnny
- Start date
- Status
I saw that this AM. Some of this stuff should be remembered as we move forward.
Quote:
API’s Lubricants Committee approved the SN and SN Resource Conserving passenger car engine oil categories, with first licensing Oct. 1, 2010, launching alongside ILSAC GF-5. The thumbs-up came in spite of continued opposition from automakers.
API SN will be an upgrade of the current API SM category, identified by the API Donut trademark. It aims to address the full spectrum of engine oil viscosity grades, including those not covered under the ILSAC specification, such as SAE 10W-40. SN Resource Conserving (which will replace the current SM Energy Conserving designation) has additional requirements covering fuel economy improvement and vehicle emissions systems protection.
Feedback from automakers, who have no vote on the American Petroleum Institute’s categories, had been uniformly negative over a series of meetings in recent months. Some OEMs threatened to withdraw support for API licensed oils entirely if the SN category was not aligned to GF-5 in areas such as phosphorus content and deposit control.
“They [automakers] definitely didn’t approve it,” API engine oil licensing manager Kevin Ferrick confirmed to Lube Report. “The OEMs commented that had there been a separate ballot item for SN Resource Conserving, they would have approved that. But for practical purposes, we didn’t feel it was necessary to change the ballot and issue it again. That was enough for us, that they approved of SN Resource Conserving. It makes sense because it’s an exact duplicate of GF-5.”
Quote:
“A lot of the comments we had from the automakers had to do with concerns about misapplication,” Ferrick explained. “There was concern SN oils could end up in their cars when they need to be GF-5 or SN with Resource Conserving. The committee discussed that and did agree they need to do significantly more consumer education to make sure that there’s not a misapplication.”
In response to automaker’s concerns, the Lubricants Committee agreed to add a sentence to the SN service recommendation, “Vehicle owners and operators should follow their vehicle manufacturer’s recommendations on engine oil viscosity and performance standard.” They hope this will help ensure that the oils recommended by engine manufacturers are used, especially in newer model-year vehicles.
Quote:
API’s Lubricants Committee approved the SN and SN Resource Conserving passenger car engine oil categories, with first licensing Oct. 1, 2010, launching alongside ILSAC GF-5. The thumbs-up came in spite of continued opposition from automakers.
API SN will be an upgrade of the current API SM category, identified by the API Donut trademark. It aims to address the full spectrum of engine oil viscosity grades, including those not covered under the ILSAC specification, such as SAE 10W-40. SN Resource Conserving (which will replace the current SM Energy Conserving designation) has additional requirements covering fuel economy improvement and vehicle emissions systems protection.
Feedback from automakers, who have no vote on the American Petroleum Institute’s categories, had been uniformly negative over a series of meetings in recent months. Some OEMs threatened to withdraw support for API licensed oils entirely if the SN category was not aligned to GF-5 in areas such as phosphorus content and deposit control.
“They [automakers] definitely didn’t approve it,” API engine oil licensing manager Kevin Ferrick confirmed to Lube Report. “The OEMs commented that had there been a separate ballot item for SN Resource Conserving, they would have approved that. But for practical purposes, we didn’t feel it was necessary to change the ballot and issue it again. That was enough for us, that they approved of SN Resource Conserving. It makes sense because it’s an exact duplicate of GF-5.”
Quote:
“A lot of the comments we had from the automakers had to do with concerns about misapplication,” Ferrick explained. “There was concern SN oils could end up in their cars when they need to be GF-5 or SN with Resource Conserving. The committee discussed that and did agree they need to do significantly more consumer education to make sure that there’s not a misapplication.”
In response to automaker’s concerns, the Lubricants Committee agreed to add a sentence to the SN service recommendation, “Vehicle owners and operators should follow their vehicle manufacturer’s recommendations on engine oil viscosity and performance standard.” They hope this will help ensure that the oils recommended by engine manufacturers are used, especially in newer model-year vehicles.
what does this mean exactly is laymans terms?
Originally Posted By: Johnny248
what does this mean exactly is laymans terms?
It means use it when it is officially licensed in October. Same phos and zinc levels as the API SM GF-4 oils but different in others areas like cleaning, preventing deposits, high temps, fuel mileage, etc. Plus it won't be called Energy Conserving but Resource Conserving to help please the OEM's.
what does this mean exactly is laymans terms?
It means use it when it is officially licensed in October. Same phos and zinc levels as the API SM GF-4 oils but different in others areas like cleaning, preventing deposits, high temps, fuel mileage, etc. Plus it won't be called Energy Conserving but Resource Conserving to help please the OEM's.
LOL! I'll go with the ILSAC GF-5 and/or European ACEA spec. then.
Q.
Q.
Well, for the first time the API and ILSAC spec will be exactly the same.
It will be different than GF-5 in what way? Less protection? Fewer additives? A shorter service life?
The comment “They [automakers] definitely didn’t approve it,” raises a question about who the certification serves.
The comment “They [automakers] definitely didn’t approve it,” raises a question about who the certification serves.
Is my understanding correct?
SN oil will just get the "donut" without the "starburst", so perhaps a high mileage oil on the heavy side of the viscosity scale will get this. To qualify for the "starburst" an oil will have to be "SN-resource conserving", which actually is equal to GF-5.
SN oil will just get the "donut" without the "starburst", so perhaps a high mileage oil on the heavy side of the viscosity scale will get this. To qualify for the "starburst" an oil will have to be "SN-resource conserving", which actually is equal to GF-5.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Well, for the first time the API and ILSAC spec will be exactly the same.
Originally Posted By: djb
It will be different than GF-5 in what way? Less protection? Fewer additives? A shorter service life?
The comment “They [automakers] definitely didn’t approve it,” raises a question about who the certification serves.
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. API SN and ILSAC GF-5 will be exactly the same. No difference. Both better than API SM and ILSAC GF-4.
Well, for the first time the API and ILSAC spec will be exactly the same.
Originally Posted By: djb
It will be different than GF-5 in what way? Less protection? Fewer additives? A shorter service life?
The comment “They [automakers] definitely didn’t approve it,” raises a question about who the certification serves.
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. API SN and ILSAC GF-5 will be exactly the same. No difference. Both better than API SM and ILSAC GF-4.
Quote:
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. API SN and ILSAC GF-5 will be exactly the same. No difference.
Then what's the conflict with the auto manufacturers about? Why did they threaten to withdraw support for the API certification if SN didn't come into line with GF-5 regarding phosphorus and deposit control? And why the concern about owners using SN when it needed to be GF-5?
I'm not intimately familiar with the situation, but it appears to me that, at best, SN Resource Conserving might be the same as GF-5. But clearly SN is not.
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. API SN and ILSAC GF-5 will be exactly the same. No difference.
Then what's the conflict with the auto manufacturers about? Why did they threaten to withdraw support for the API certification if SN didn't come into line with GF-5 regarding phosphorus and deposit control? And why the concern about owners using SN when it needed to be GF-5?
I'm not intimately familiar with the situation, but it appears to me that, at best, SN Resource Conserving might be the same as GF-5. But clearly SN is not.
So automakers need to put "use API SN Resource Conserving" rather than just "use API SN" oil? And they make a stink about this.
Funny " Some OEMs threatened to withdraw support for API licensed oils entirely if the SN category was not aligned to GF-5 in areas such as phosphorus content and deposit control."
I take this to mean that SN non-energy conserving oils can still have 1400ppm ZDDP and SN resource-conserving will be at GF-5 800ppm levels. Imagine the reaction around here if all SN oils has been 800. Maybe it wouldn't be that bad, half the people here don't realize that a SM 10-40 can have more than 800.
Funny " Some OEMs threatened to withdraw support for API licensed oils entirely if the SN category was not aligned to GF-5 in areas such as phosphorus content and deposit control."
I take this to mean that SN non-energy conserving oils can still have 1400ppm ZDDP and SN resource-conserving will be at GF-5 800ppm levels. Imagine the reaction around here if all SN oils has been 800. Maybe it wouldn't be that bad, half the people here don't realize that a SM 10-40 can have more than 800.
Originally Posted By: bepperb
Maybe it wouldn't be that bad, half the people here don't realize that a SM 10-40 can have more than 800.
I'm still confused and getting concerned about my flat tappits in all my cars.
Maybe it wouldn't be that bad, half the people here don't realize that a SM 10-40 can have more than 800.
I'm still confused and getting concerned about my flat tappits in all my cars.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. API SN and ILSAC GF-5 will be exactly the same. No difference. Both better than API SM and ILSAC GF-4.
I thought SN Resource Conserving was the same as GF-5, but regular SN was not...?
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. API SN and ILSAC GF-5 will be exactly the same. No difference. Both better than API SM and ILSAC GF-4.
I thought SN Resource Conserving was the same as GF-5, but regular SN was not...?
Both automakers and the API agree that ZDDP is hard on catalytic converters and O2 sensors. So, they reduced the amount of it in "energy conserving" oils to 800ppm but oils without this are limited to 1400. 40 weight oils can not be "energy conserving" and 30 weight oils are not necessarily "energy conserving" though most are.
If you're really worried, stick to a 40 weight oil and you'll be fine even on "SM" oil, and from the looks of it "SN" as well. But really, outside of breakin or some really stiff non-stock springs in your valvetrain I wouldn't.
If you're really worried, stick to a 40 weight oil and you'll be fine even on "SM" oil, and from the looks of it "SN" as well. But really, outside of breakin or some really stiff non-stock springs in your valvetrain I wouldn't.
Originally Posted By: Chris142
I'm still confused and getting concerned about my flat tappits in all my cars.
Is ZDDP the only substance in the Known Universe that can protect those? Is there no hope?
I'm still confused and getting concerned about my flat tappits in all my cars.
Is ZDDP the only substance in the Known Universe that can protect those? Is there no hope?
Originally Posted By: sbergman27
Originally Posted By: Chris142
I'm still confused and getting concerned about my flat tappits in all my cars.
Is ZDDP the only substance in the Known Universe that can protect those? Is there no hope?
I'm mainly worried about my International pickup. Many flat cam lobes on the IHC forums in the last few years plus the engine that I rebuilt for my truck had 4 very worn but not quite flat lobes.
I'm not taking any chances with mine.
Originally Posted By: Chris142
I'm still confused and getting concerned about my flat tappits in all my cars.
Is ZDDP the only substance in the Known Universe that can protect those? Is there no hope?
I'm mainly worried about my International pickup. Many flat cam lobes on the IHC forums in the last few years plus the engine that I rebuilt for my truck had 4 very worn but not quite flat lobes.
I'm not taking any chances with mine.
- Status
