G-OIL 5W-20: Advanced SM vs SN

[SwedishRider]

I just recently had two VOAs done on G-OIL Full Synthetic 5W-20.

5W-20 Advanced SM: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3187459#Post3187459

5W-20 SN: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3188731#Post3188731

The Advanced SM shows a much more stout add pack and TBN, though it does not have SN certification.

The SN looks weaker in comparison, and has a lower TBN, but is SN certified.

Advanced SM is priced with included shipping at $8.26/qt (pack of 6qts) and SN is $8.87/qt shipped (5.1qt jug) through Amazon.

In comparing the two, I would have to think that if a car is spec'd to take an SM 5W-20, the Advanced SM formula is the way to go given the add pack, TBN numbers and lower price.

Is there anything about the SN formula that would make it attractive over the Advanced SM formula? It just doesn't seem as good and costs more money... or am I not thinking about this correctly?

 

[Artem]

Something doesn't make sense. I remember seeing a post where someone posted info stating that the SN formula is improved and thus, better then SM. There was even a VOA which showed that it has a higher TBN then a previously posted SM blend.

It's weird why your results are different.

 

[SwedishRider]

I did quite a few VOAs on 0W-20 and learned to stick with one lab for consistency. I took the samples in exactly the same fashion, and OAI has been consistent with their results. It appears the Advanced formula is much more stout than the SN. What does SN spec that makes it better than SM? In this case, it doesn't appear to be better.

 

[SLATRON]

either one seems kind of expensive to me. decent Ad pack but so do many other oils that cost 50 percent less

 

[dparm]

I wouldn't call the SN inferior just because its additive pack appears weaker on paper. A VOA only tells half the story.

 

[SwedishRider]

Originally Posted By: dparm
I wouldn't call the SN inferior just because its additive pack appears weaker on paper. A VOA only tells half the story.


That's what I'm asking... what is the other half of the story that I am missing?!?

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: JimCT
Originally Posted By: dparm
I wouldn't call the SN inferior just because its additive pack appears weaker on paper. A VOA only tells half the story.


That's what I'm asking... what is the other half of the story that I am missing?!?



The bio-ester basestock is quite stout already. It's a natural friction modifier. Newer anti-wear additives aren't being tested for by some labs (antimony comes to mind).

 

[SwedishRider]

Originally Posted By: dparm
The bio-ester basestock is quite stout already. It's a natural friction modifier. Newer anti-wear additives aren't being tested for by some labs (antimony comes to mind).


So I take it that now the VOAs have been done, if I wanted to compare formulas, I would run each for X miles and do used oil analysis after each interval, comparing wear metals? Otherwise, how else could they be compared?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: JimCT
So I take it that now the VOAs have been done, if I wanted to compare formulas, I would run each for X miles and do used oil analysis after each interval, comparing wear metals? Otherwise, how else could they be compared?

That isn't a valid way to compare oils, nor a valid use of used oil analysis. All you can possibly realistically compare between two different oil formulations by UOA on one vehicle might be OCI, and maybe shear resistance.

 

[SwedishRider]

Originally Posted By: Garak
That isn't a valid way to compare oils, nor a valid use of used oil analysis. All you can possibly realistically compare between two different oil formulations by UOA on one vehicle might be OCI, and maybe shear resistance.


So then what is a valid way to compare the Advanced SM to the SN?

 

[Garak]

There honestly isn't a valid way for us ordinary folk. That's why we have organizations such as the API, ILSAC, and ACEA to ensure that oils meet required standards.

The problem with using used oil analysis and "wear metals" is that used oil analysis are supposed to be done in a trended fashion with one lube and one lab to have meaningful results. The PPM numbers really don't tell you a lot about what's going on, with the exception of dealing with a few condemnation limits (and things like poor air filtration, coolant intrusion, fuel dilution). If a "wear metal" spikes or trends upwards, it's worthy of attention.

But, comparing an SM version of a product to the SN version is going to be problematic. The only real way to compare things would be tear downs, and that's not cheap or feasible, and it's very difficult and costly to accumulate a lot of hours on several engines to do a valid comparison.

That's one reason why repeatable tests are part of the certification process. It's not feasible to throw Brand X into one hundred engines, run them for the equivalent of a couple hundred thousand miles, tear them down and inspect, and start all over with Brand Y.

One of the most important lessons anyone can ever learn here is to pay attention to an oil's certifications. If the oil is of the correct viscosity and meets the certifications for your engine, the odds are that it's going to work very well when used according to the directions of the oil company and over the appropriate OCI.

The real world differences between any random SN/GF-5 lubricants over OCIs specified in the manual are negligible. We'd be hard pressed to see a difference.

That's not to say one cannot have preferences with respect to brands or synthetic versus conventional. I have my preferences, loyalties, and quirks (i.e. I have a mixing phobia). Sometimes it's fun to obsess about the little things, but the differences don't really mean much.

Looking at your two VOAs, we do see that there are differences. I'm kind of a fan of higher TBN, but that isn't as important as it once was. TBN retention is what's really important. Certain ACEA specifications call for a minimum TBN value, but we have to remember those tend to be long drain specifications. The Delvac 1 I'm using has a way higher TBN than is required for CJ-4 or is customarily seen in PCMOs, simply because one of the ACEA specs it meets requires that.

Everything on your VOAs looks within norms. The only thing I wonder about is the oxidation number on the SM, versus that on the SN. Nonetheless, from an "obsession" standpoint, both look dandy with plenty of the "goodies" we look for. As dparm noted, though, there are plenty of things we cannot see in a VOA. If the SM is priced better for you and you happen to prefer it, by all means, use it. I'd have full confidence in either product.

If the viscosity were greatly off, or an additive level was way outside requirements, then I'd worry. We've seen that on occasion with smaller blenders, but this is clearly not the case here.

 

[SwedishRider]

Thanks for that Garak!

That made sense. I have both the Advanced SM and SN to use, and so I'll use my SM up first before I use the SN. My vehicles take SM, so I'd rather use the older spec up first to keep the newer spec ready to use (in case of a vehicle change that requires SN).

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Garak
There honestly isn't a valid way for us ordinary folk. That's why we have organizations such as the API, ILSAC, and ACEA to ensure that oils meet required standards.

The problem with using used oil analysis and "wear metals" is that used oil analysis are supposed to be done in a trended fashion with one lube and one lab to have meaningful results. The PPM numbers really don't tell you a lot about what's going on, with the exception of dealing with a few condemnation limits (and things like poor air filtration, coolant intrusion, fuel dilution). If a "wear metal" spikes or trends upwards, it's worthy of attention.

But, comparing an SM version of a product to the SN version is going to be problematic. The only real way to compare things would be tear downs, and that's not cheap or feasible, and it's very difficult and costly to accumulate a lot of hours on several engines to do a valid comparison.

That's one reason why repeatable tests are part of the certification process. It's not feasible to throw Brand X into one hundred engines, run them for the equivalent of a couple hundred thousand miles, tear them down and inspect, and start all over with Brand Y.

One of the most important lessons anyone can ever learn here is to pay attention to an oil's certifications. If the oil is of the correct viscosity and meets the certifications for your engine, the odds are that it's going to work very well when used according to the directions of the oil company and over the appropriate OCI.

The real world differences between any random SN/GF-5 lubricants over OCIs specified in the manual are negligible. We'd be hard pressed to see a difference.

That's not to say one cannot have preferences with respect to brands or synthetic versus conventional. I have my preferences, loyalties, and quirks (i.e. I have a mixing phobia). Sometimes it's fun to obsess about the little things, but the differences don't really mean much.

Looking at your two VOAs, we do see that there are differences. I'm kind of a fan of higher TBN, but that isn't as important as it once was. TBN retention is what's really important. Certain ACEA specifications call for a minimum TBN value, but we have to remember those tend to be long drain specifications. The Delvac 1 I'm using has a way higher TBN than is required for CJ-4 or is customarily seen in PCMOs, simply because one of the ACEA specs it meets requires that.

Everything on your VOAs looks within norms. The only thing I wonder about is the oxidation number on the SM, versus that on the SN. Nonetheless, from an "obsession" standpoint, both look dandy with plenty of the "goodies" we look for. As dparm noted, though, there are plenty of things we cannot see in a VOA. If the SM is priced better for you and you happen to prefer it, by all means, use it. I'd have full confidence in either product.

If the viscosity were greatly off, or an additive level was way outside requirements, then I'd worry. We've seen that on occasion with smaller blenders, but this is clearly not the case here.




Awesome explanation.
A used oil analysis test the oil and isn't comprehensive enough to actually measure engine wear. Sure it can give some hints but we have seen used oil analysis' here that looked fine and the engine munched itself shortly thereafter.
A used oil analysis is mean't to test the oils viability ,not the wear of the engine its in.
Great explanation Garak.

 

[Garak]

That's quite sensible, Jim. Use up the old stuff first, and then go on. That's what I tend to do.

@Clevy: That's been my suspicious about M1's high SM iron readings all along, at least. I suspect that the chemistry happened to "liberate" more PPM of iron in the relevant sizes, rather than us observing any actual increase in wear versus other oils. When there was that bad batch of M1, Valvoline (and others) jumped on it, referencing wear. I bet they quantified that by something other than used oil analysis. And, when the bad batch disappeared, Valvoline and others quickly dropped the claim, yet used oil analysis continued to report high iron.

When numbers start going wonky or trending in odd directions, that's the time to start thinking. But, as we need to be aware, we shouldn't fall into the temptation to blame the oil. If something is going wrong in an engine, it's going to be acceptable to say "Quaker State Conventional wrecked my engine; if I had only used Pennzoil conventional everything would have been fine."

 

[SwedishRider]

Garak, could I ask your oil filter preference? I plan on 5000-6000 miles as an OCI, and so I'm trying to figure out what would pair best with my G-OIL. I know Wix/NAPA Gold and Purolator PUREOne seem to be the two best short of a synthetic media filter for extended drain. You seem very knowledgeable. What is your opinion for an oil filter?

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: JimCT
Garak, could I ask your oil filter preference? I plan on 5000-6000 miles as an OCI, and so I'm trying to figure out what would pair best with my G-OIL. I know Wix/NAPA Gold and Purolator PUREOne seem to be the two best short of a synthetic media filter for extended drain. You seem very knowledgeable. What is your opinion for an oil filter?


Oil filters. One of my favorite topics.
Most people completely underutilize oil filters.
I run puro classics for 10000 miles.
Dnewton proved in a clean engine his puro Classic went 15000 miles and his insols were well below condemnation point and the filter was still fine.
The thing about filters is that they filter better as they load up,so as the pores trap particulate it makes the filter media's pores smaller which then trap smaller and smaller particles.
I would never suggest 10000 miles on an engine that's known to have deposits however on a known clean engine 10000 miles is easily attainable with lower tier filters.
Filters like purolator's pure ones or the fram ultra or Bosch distance plus should be fine for 20000 miles,unless your engine has deposit issues.
I run lower tiers at 10000 miles and the top notch ones 20000 miles and I'm positive my engines are fine.
I've done this for many years and dneuton's example re-enforces the idea.

 

[SwedishRider]

Wow! At 20,000 miles, I would only change the filter every third or fourth oil change!! I don't plan on running more than a 6Kish mile OCI, and that would make for about 2 changes a year. I was figuring a Wix or PureONE for each of those changes... but I get the feeling you feel that is overkill...

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: JimCT
I plan on 5000-6000 miles as an OCI, and so I'm trying to figure out what would pair best with my G-OIL. I know Wix/NAPA Gold and Purolator PUREOne seem to be the two best short of a synthetic media filter for extended drain.

I've used a variety, but Wix and Motorcraft have been what I've used the most, and they will handle such an OCI. I also use Bosch Premiums (since the P1 isn't readily available here) and Hastings and other OEM brands (I used to use AC a lot when they were available at Walmart here many years ago).

I usually buy on price from one of the trusted brands. For my G, the Bosch is hard to beat for price. For the old F-150, I can get the Wix for $4.99, so that's a common choice for me. If I decided to go for a synthetic filter, the Fram Ultra and Purolator Synthetic would be hard to resist based on their prices up here.

 

[CATERHAM]

Jim thanks for posting these.

If you ran a KV40 test it might have explained the why the KV100 was higher for the SM oil although the SN oil is exactly as per their MSDS at 8.5cSt. The AW elements fall within the range of batch variation. The high calcium level of he SN oil may or may not be repeatable, not that I would be overly interested one way or the other.

On balance the VOAs look good and if the MSDS spec's are correct (KV40 45cSt) and the other spec's that G-Oil claims such as NOACK of 6.2% then I'd say it's one of the best 5W-20s available.