I know that ILSAC-GF5 is out early on Ultra and the new Pennzoil conventional but I have a question. I understand that they are dis-agreeing with the automakers about the standards of SN and have scheduled a re-vote. What happens if they can't come to an agreement? Are we stuck with SM?
API SN
- Thread starter Hemi426
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Yeah does anyone have a link?
Lube Report 3/24
Lube Report 3/31
"As originally balloted, SN and SN Resource Conserving drew heavy fire from U.S. automakers, some of whom threatened to withdraw all support for API S-category oils if they were issued as written."
"Some key sticking points remain for the committee to consider, including revisions OEMs have suggested for SN requirements, API engine oil licensing manager Kevin Ferrick told Lube Report. These include adding an 800ppm phosphorus limit, requiring the TEOST 33C test for high-temperature deposits, and testing emulsion retention in all SN oil viscosities. In response to OEM comments about the initial SN ballot, API suggested adding elastomer compatibility into the SN requirements, too."
"There are compelling reasons why an Oct. 1 first-licensing date is advantageous for API SN. Products meeting the new ILSAC GF-5 category also will launch on that date, and the cost of converting product labels, sales material, specification sheets and websites to reflect the change will cost lubricant marketers millions of dollars. No company relishes the idea of repeating all that effort a few weeks or months later, just to reflect an SN upgrade alone."
Tom NJ
Yeah does anyone have a link?
Lube Report 3/24
Lube Report 3/31
"As originally balloted, SN and SN Resource Conserving drew heavy fire from U.S. automakers, some of whom threatened to withdraw all support for API S-category oils if they were issued as written."
"Some key sticking points remain for the committee to consider, including revisions OEMs have suggested for SN requirements, API engine oil licensing manager Kevin Ferrick told Lube Report. These include adding an 800ppm phosphorus limit, requiring the TEOST 33C test for high-temperature deposits, and testing emulsion retention in all SN oil viscosities. In response to OEM comments about the initial SN ballot, API suggested adding elastomer compatibility into the SN requirements, too."
"There are compelling reasons why an Oct. 1 first-licensing date is advantageous for API SN. Products meeting the new ILSAC GF-5 category also will launch on that date, and the cost of converting product labels, sales material, specification sheets and websites to reflect the change will cost lubricant marketers millions of dollars. No company relishes the idea of repeating all that effort a few weeks or months later, just to reflect an SN upgrade alone."
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: qship1996
That does not mean it is officially approved as a gf5 oil......it isnt.More hyped marketing.
Wrong, it has been approved but the licenses will not be released until October 1. Then it can be officially listed in the spec. Shell would not have put that on the label the way they did if it had not been formulated, tested, and approved.
That does not mean it is officially approved as a gf5 oil......it isnt.More hyped marketing.
Wrong, it has been approved but the licenses will not be released until October 1. Then it can be officially listed in the spec. Shell would not have put that on the label the way they did if it had not been formulated, tested, and approved.
What ever you say, you know best.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Originally Posted By: qship1996
That does not mean it is officially approved as a gf5 oil......it isnt.More hyped marketing.
Shell would not have put that on the label the way they did if it had not been formulated, tested, and approved.
Are you Shells official spokesperson????? Just because you worked there in some capacity it the past does not make you a final word in the current {or past} business practices of the company....
Originally Posted By: qship1996
That does not mean it is officially approved as a gf5 oil......it isnt.More hyped marketing.
Shell would not have put that on the label the way they did if it had not been formulated, tested, and approved.
Are you Shells official spokesperson????? Just because you worked there in some capacity it the past does not make you a final word in the current {or past} business practices of the company....
NO I'M NOT. But I know a heck of a lot more about Shell Oil Company than you ever will.
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny's word is good enough for me anyday.
Well, all I can suggest for you is to put me on your ignore list and don't read my post. And for your information I do not speak from the past. I still have personal contacts at Shell. One of the benefits of making friends for the 22+ years I worked there.
Good night and have a great weekend.
Good night and have a great weekend.
- Status