API SN spec compromised? Yes... says Joe Gibbs

[webfors]

Might have been posted already. Good sales pitch for SL. But his engines won't be very "clean"

Quote:
Motor Oil Standards Set To Change in 2011

API SN/GF-5 Press Release
Contact: Lake Speed, Jr (704) 239-4401

API approves GF-5, SN to go into effect in 2010. GM Announces dexos 1 global engine oil specification for 2011 model year vehicles.

API SN – ILSAC GF-5 licensed oil will hit the shelves in October of 2010, and this new oil specification places greater emphasis on protecting catalytic converters than previous oil standards. While this is good news for emissions, improved catalytic converter life has proven to be detrimental to flat-tappet camshaft life.

Both the new API SN and GM dexos oil standards will require the use of a new type of “Phosphorus Retention” ZDP. ZDP or Zinc, as it is known, provides protection for engine components by creating a phosphate film. The creation of this phosphate film also results in a reduction of performance in Three Way Catalytic Converters. The new “Phosphorus Retention” ZDP is less reactive, so it is less detrimental to catalytic converter performance. It is unknown how this new “Phosphorus Retention” ZDP will perform in flat-tappet and high performance engines.

Another change associated with API SN/ILSAC GF-5 oils will be greater fuel economy performance. This improvement in fuel economy will be achieved by increased use of polymers called Viscosity Modifiers. These polymers help a “thin” oil act “thicker” under low stress conditions. While the liberal use of polymers helps improve fuel economy in modern passenger car engines, older style push-rod and race engines produce greater shear stresses that can “tear” these polymers. When these polymers are sheared, oil losses viscosity, and that can lead to increased wear.

More than ever before, hot rodders, engine builders, and racers need to be aware that API rated products are “compromised” due to Passenger Car OEM requirements for improved catalytic converter life, fuel economy, and engine cleanliness.

To achieve these goals, oil marketers must reduce the Phosphorus, Sulfur and Zinc levels in their oils, and they must use more polymers and aggressive detergents. While these changes are good for modern low rpm, overhead cam engines, older push rod engines and high RPM race engines need lubricants with higher levels of Phosphorus, Sulfur and Zinc as well as lower levels of polymers and detergents.

Fortunately, Engine Builders, Racers and Hot Rodders have Joe Gibbs Driven oils available to them for Engine Break-In, Racing and Hot Rodding, so you don’t need to worry. Joe Gibbs Driven oils use the “old school” ZDP for outstanding flat-tappet camshaft protection. Joe Gibbs Racing uses the Joe Gibbs Driven oils for break-in and racing our flat-tappet engines, and our engines see over 9,000 RPM, make over 850 hp and have to run more than 600 miles per race weekend. Joe Gibbs Driven Racing Oils have protected our engines for the last 10 years, and we’ve won 5 NASCAR championships during that time using these oils.

These oils cost a little more per quart than premium passenger car and diesel oils, but they provide greater value and protection. The small investment in the right oil for your flat-tappet cam will same you big money in the long run.

 

[daman]

 

[NateDN10]

Compromised... for high performance racing engines.

But this was already true for API SM. Why would you put a "thin" PCMO in your expensive race engine, anyway?

 

[Hootbro]

So is there going to be a mad rush to stock up on SM before the change?

 

[demarpaint]

People still want API SL. That seems to be the best of the bunch in the minds of some.

 

[webfors]

From his perspective SN/SM are both compromised. Arco might agree

 

[rclint]

That's a nice spin on a lucrative hot rod market !! hot rod engines owners first impulse seems to be to change out the cam to get a good sounding engine, and more power ( I love the sound also) the aftermarket cam builds use subpar metals at best, the finish, and treatment techniques also leaves so much on the table... it seems everything is blamed on the oil, when in fact the finger pointing should at least be looked at toward the cam builders... ordering metal with serts is expensive, I'm sure most of the aftermarket metals are coming from china, or maybe the entire cam casting then finish ground here in the US,, or maybe it's a finished product from china,,, I do know china is very lacking in steel certs, heck they will certify anything which has mad trace work pretty much worthless when it comes to metal certification papers... you tell them what you want the cert to say, and they print it up... Taking up for china they can make parts that are top tier, with metal substrates for the application, real certification papers etc,,,, however it would cost more to make it in china then than here in the US

I have seen china castings (cast iron lathe beds etc, lathes from china) with spark plugs in the casting, pours spots, and very poor machine work,.... I have also seen top notch castings,and work fro china however they cost is well over US made parts....

I didn't mean to sway so far off to china, I just wanted to make a point that not every cam failure is related to the oil, you throw in a cheap hot rod cam fix with a good rumble, a month or so later your cam is toast ... first thought by looking at the cam is it could not have been properly lubricated because look at the lobes, the surface finish now looks filed down with gashes etc... research on the net and low, and behold these new oils are no good.... but no or little mention of cam substrate (metal) is now coming from china, or the entire cam, finishing, coating, treating is not mentioned.

 

[buster]

Well yea, it's a compromise for those that need added ZDP for flat tappet cams. Most modern engines don't need this!

 

[mechanicx]

But for people who do need it, classic cars, flat tappet performance cams and racing class that require flat tappets, I don't think he is wrong. Putting aside the issue of low quality aftermarket performance cams, they are more aggressive and even with quality materials and manufacturing I think there is evidence they need an oil that has more zddp and that is not SM or SN. I can't say I'm enthused by more VM/VII in SN.

 

[JHZR2]

flat tappets yes. modern run of the mill engines??? ZDDP is obsolete, IMO.

 

[ProfPS]

Has anyone read an update on this flat tappet concern? Wonder what Ford is going to do with their MC specs and conctract with Conoco since the 2.5L engine is a flat tappet engine that is also used in Mazdas?

 

[Johnny]

I agree with Lake Speed Jr and Joe Gibbs. I would not run API SN GF-5 oils in my 800hp NASCAR Toyotas either.

 

[4ever4d]

Jonny,i noticed you have added ZMax to your signature how is that working for you?I understand you can only have a limited evaluation at this time.

 

[PandaBear]

There are plenty of oil that aren't API SM/SN speced that the hot rodder can use, what's wrong with buying those instead of the over the counter SM/SN?

I'd rather these newer oil keep up with the need of DI engines and high ethanol contents.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
There are plenty of oil that aren't API SM/SN speced that the hot rodder can use, what's wrong with buying those instead of the over the counter SM/SN?


I just did some checking at a local Walmart and Canadian Tire. We've heard the grumbling about Dexos and the anticipation about SN and GF-5, so I was curious as to how the rollouts have been going. We tend to be a bit behind here in Canada when it comes to new products.

I was surprised at how many older spec products are actually available, if one checks out HDEOs, even ones in more sensible weights for the average passenger car. I actually came across a dual rated HDEO today, made by SOPUS, whose highest gas engine rating was SF. And no, it wasn't sitting on the shelf for two decades, either. It had the three dimensional bar code on the bottle, rather than just the old style bar code.

I also noticed something else rather peculiar. Quite a number of SOPUS products in Canada have abandoned the donut and starburst API symbols. Canadian Tire's Formula 1 conventional (a SOPUS product) says it meets SN, but does not say it is SN approved, and doesn't show any API donuts or starbursts whatsoever.

I'm not sure what to make of it. I saw many new SOPUS products today without the certification marks. Then, we have the SOPUS website in the U.S. with outdated spec sheets and missing links. Were certain products awaiting approval, or was approval delayed from reformulation? Or is API really beginning to lose relevance?

I had to restrain myself, since there was a sale on the PYB 4.73 L jugs for $12.88 (not as good as the QS GB 5 L for $9.88, but still a decent deal for here). They were the SM/GF-4 ones. They only had 10w-30, and I have more than enough of that for the next while. PU was at Walmart - enough shelf space for about 8 jugs; it was half full, and $2 cheaper than PP.

Go figure, though - GC was cleaned out except for two bottles, and the price was raised by $2 a few weeks ago. When it was cheap, there was more than enough for an oil change.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: rclint
That's a nice spin on a lucrative hot rod market !! hot rod engines owners first impulse seems to be to change out the cam to get a good sounding engine, and more power ( I love the sound also) the aftermarket cam builds use subpar metals at best, the finish, and treatment techniques also leaves so much on the table... it seems everything is blamed on the oil, when in fact the finger pointing should at least be looked at toward the cam builders... ordering metal with serts is expensive, I'm sure most of the aftermarket metals are coming from china, or maybe the entire cam casting then finish ground here in the US,, or maybe it's a finished product from china,,, I do know china is very lacking in steel certs, heck they will certify anything which has mad trace work pretty much worthless when it comes to metal certification papers... you tell them what you want the cert to say, and they print it up... Taking up for china they can make parts that are top tier, with metal substrates for the application, real certification papers etc,,,, however it would cost more to make it in china then than here in the US

I have seen china castings (cast iron lathe beds etc, lathes from china) with spark plugs in the casting, pours spots, and very poor machine work,.... I have also seen top notch castings,and work fro china however they cost is well over US made parts....

I didn't mean to sway so far off to china, I just wanted to make a point that not every cam failure is related to the oil, you throw in a cheap hot rod cam fix with a good rumble, a month or so later your cam is toast ... first thought by looking at the cam is it could not have been properly lubricated because look at the lobes, the surface finish now looks filed down with gashes etc... research on the net and low, and behold these new oils are no good.... but no or little mention of cam substrate (metal) is now coming from china, or the entire cam, finishing, coating, treating is not mentioned.


There's an article floating around the internet which speaks of this. Apparently a bunch of U.S. manufacturers went out of business right about the time the API released a new spec. Parts made in Chine filled the void (they were cheaper), people were having problems and immediately blamed it on the new API spec when it was really a problem with the quality of the cheaper tappets.

 

[AEHaas]

The new standard is labeled for better performance rather than better fuel economy. This is because the new standard is also for less wear than previous ratings. Generally the same old test engine is used and in general the more recent API rating is for less wear and tear.

ALWAYS, the oil ratings have stated that they are fully BACKWARDS compatible. This means that the reduced wear level standard is for all the engines. This includes engines that people say will "blow up" if the new oil is used.

If you actually read (and understand) the ratings and the tests then you will see that there is no way your engine (of any type) is at risk for anything but better performance in every category when using the newest oils.

aehaas

 

[Brian Barnhart]

Originally Posted By: AEHaas
The new standard is labeled for better performance rather than better fuel economy. This is because the new standard is also for less wear than previous ratings.


Actually, I believe the SN/GF-5 requirements for wear protection (Sequences IIIG and IVA) are exactly the same as for SM/GF-4. And there were changes in the SN/GF-5 fuel efficiency requirements (versus SM/GF-4) aimed at improving fuel economy.

 

[AEHaas]

API documents do not only mention fuel economy as every person thinks. They mention improvements in the protection of the exhaust parts. They have enhanced the requirements to prevent the degradation of engines associated with the use of ETOH in fuels. And there are provisions for specifically diminishing wear in turbocharged engines (that run hotter and at higher RPM).

aehaas

 

[Brian Barnhart]

GF-5 requirements are more stringent in many areas, but not in the areas of wear protection, oxidation, and volatility. Are GF-5 oils good? Yes, especially for many late model engines.

But I'm still not convinced GF-5 oils are a good choice for my original '65 289. For that application, I need to consider the flat tappets, carburator, and valves designed to run on leaded fuel without alcohol. And things like turbo protection, emission system durability, fuel economy, engine sludge are of no concern. This is the market Gibbs is looking at.

The API and SN/GF-5 oil manufacturers can talk backwards compatibility, but they don't warrant their products in older applications like mine and therefore don't really have a horse in the race.