German Castrol vs. new GF-5, SN rated oils...
- Thread starter j_mac
- Start date
- Status
It would fail the later specifications on fuel economy and viscosity to begin with. It is for European spec'ed vehicles such as the "229.50" approval for Mercedes. It is high HTHS.
GC is indeed API SL.
Its add pack is less emissions-friendly than newer API SN.
Its add pack is less emissions-friendly than newer API SN.
ILSAC GF-5 and API SN are not the kinds of specs that GC was designed to meet. They place a higher emphasis on fuel economy and emissions systems compatibility.
For GC, it's all about ACEA A3, MB 229.5, BMW LL-01, and so on. Those are more about performance at high temperatures and under other stressful conditions. It meets older ILSAC and API specs because those didn't stress fuel economy and emissions systems compatibility as much as the new ones do.
If you need an oil that will take a heavy beating and don't have to worry about fuel economy or sensitive emissions systems, you're better off with GC. If your engine is easy on oil and has a sensitive emissions system, and you need maximum fuel economy, you're better off with an ILSAC GF-5/API SN oil. Neither one is "better" than the other.
For GC, it's all about ACEA A3, MB 229.5, BMW LL-01, and so on. Those are more about performance at high temperatures and under other stressful conditions. It meets older ILSAC and API specs because those didn't stress fuel economy and emissions systems compatibility as much as the new ones do.
If you need an oil that will take a heavy beating and don't have to worry about fuel economy or sensitive emissions systems, you're better off with GC. If your engine is easy on oil and has a sensitive emissions system, and you need maximum fuel economy, you're better off with an ILSAC GF-5/API SN oil. Neither one is "better" than the other.
Although API likes to say that SN is better than SM, and SM is better than SL (and so on), I don't know if I necessarily agree. Again we're using the word 'better' which is somewhat inappropriate, but there's no debating the fact that older specs like SL offer proven anti-wear properties.
Originally Posted By: dparm
Although API likes to say that SN is better than SM, and SM is better than SL (and so on), I don't know if I necessarily agree. Again we're using the word 'better' which is somewhat inappropriate, but there's no debating the fact that older specs like SL offer proven anti-wear properties.
A better way to say that last part would be "proven levels of anti-wear additives."
AFAIK, SM is actually stricter than SL with respect to wear, and thus if you're looking at products that just barely meet each spec, the SM one will perform better. What you're talking about is more like what we see with high-end xw-20 and xw-30 synthetics, all of which vastly outperform SM and SL with respect to wear. In those cases, the minimum specs don't tell you much and the one with higher levels of anti-wear additives often wins. As always, the point is that you have to look at each formulation as a whole rather than at any individual piece, and take everything on a case-by-case basis.
Although API likes to say that SN is better than SM, and SM is better than SL (and so on), I don't know if I necessarily agree. Again we're using the word 'better' which is somewhat inappropriate, but there's no debating the fact that older specs like SL offer proven anti-wear properties.
A better way to say that last part would be "proven levels of anti-wear additives."
AFAIK, SM is actually stricter than SL with respect to wear, and thus if you're looking at products that just barely meet each spec, the SM one will perform better. What you're talking about is more like what we see with high-end xw-20 and xw-30 synthetics, all of which vastly outperform SM and SL with respect to wear. In those cases, the minimum specs don't tell you much and the one with higher levels of anti-wear additives often wins. As always, the point is that you have to look at each formulation as a whole rather than at any individual piece, and take everything on a case-by-case basis.
changing tracks a bit!
How would one stack
A3, BMW LL-01 & MB 229.5
against standards such as
A5, Dexos 1, HTO-06?
Just wondering how similar or different are they from one another...? any comments much appreciated!
How would one stack
A3, BMW LL-01 & MB 229.5
against standards such as
A5, Dexos 1, HTO-06?
Just wondering how similar or different are they from one another...? any comments much appreciated!
There is an interesting oil spec comparison spider chart on Lubrizol's site.
Check out how any API spec compares to (or fails to come close to meeting) A3, or the MB, VW or BMW specs.
A5 represents an entirely different standard from A3, so you really can't compare the two.
A3 is about long drain intervals in cars that can be and may be run quite hard.
A5 is more of an emissions/fuel economy spec.
You could safely run an A3/B4 oil in just about anything, except those few applications needing a low SAPS oil to protect their emissions systems.
You could not run just any API SL/SM/SN in just about any German car if the car is run hard or if the long drain interval specified by the manufacturers' is followed.
Also, you would need to be careful to use an appropriate oil for the VAG turbo engines.
This is the reason that only special and virtually unobtainable versions of many mainstream syn oils meet European car makers' oil requirements.
PP, PU, QS and Synpower were developed around API specs.
All are available in versions that meet European requirements, and good luck finding any of them.
Check out how any API spec compares to (or fails to come close to meeting) A3, or the MB, VW or BMW specs.
A5 represents an entirely different standard from A3, so you really can't compare the two.
A3 is about long drain intervals in cars that can be and may be run quite hard.
A5 is more of an emissions/fuel economy spec.
You could safely run an A3/B4 oil in just about anything, except those few applications needing a low SAPS oil to protect their emissions systems.
You could not run just any API SL/SM/SN in just about any German car if the car is run hard or if the long drain interval specified by the manufacturers' is followed.
Also, you would need to be careful to use an appropriate oil for the VAG turbo engines.
This is the reason that only special and virtually unobtainable versions of many mainstream syn oils meet European car makers' oil requirements.
PP, PU, QS and Synpower were developed around API specs.
All are available in versions that meet European requirements, and good luck finding any of them.
Originally Posted By: Ibrahim
changing tracks a bit!
How would one stack
A3, BMW LL-01 & MB 229.5
against standards such as
A5, Dexos 1, HTO-06?
Just wondering how similar or different are they from one another...? any comments much appreciated!
I don't have all the details, but here's what I can say:
- ACEA A3 requires a HTHS viscosity of 3.5 or greater. ACEA A5 requires a HTHS viscosity of less than 3.5. This makes them mutually exclusive. Other than that (which is a serious consideration for some cars), they are fairly similar.
- Honda HTO-06 tests whether the oil can continue to perform at industry-standard levels and resist deposit formation at very high temperatures, even when it is aged. It is one of the toughest high-temperature deposit specs out there right now.
- BMW LL-01 and MB 229.5 are based on ACEA A3 to some extent, but go beyond it. They ensure that an oil can run in BMW or Mercedes gasoline engines for the OEM-specified OCIs, given whatever the companies think are normal driving habits for their cars (which includes long hours at high speeds on unrestricted sections of the Autobahn).
- Dexos 1 is GM's equivalent of LL-01 and 229.5.
Obviously I've left a lot of blanks to be filled in, so hopefully someone better informed can chime in.
changing tracks a bit!
How would one stack
A3, BMW LL-01 & MB 229.5
against standards such as
A5, Dexos 1, HTO-06?
Just wondering how similar or different are they from one another...? any comments much appreciated!
I don't have all the details, but here's what I can say:
- ACEA A3 requires a HTHS viscosity of 3.5 or greater. ACEA A5 requires a HTHS viscosity of less than 3.5. This makes them mutually exclusive. Other than that (which is a serious consideration for some cars), they are fairly similar.
- Honda HTO-06 tests whether the oil can continue to perform at industry-standard levels and resist deposit formation at very high temperatures, even when it is aged. It is one of the toughest high-temperature deposit specs out there right now.
- BMW LL-01 and MB 229.5 are based on ACEA A3 to some extent, but go beyond it. They ensure that an oil can run in BMW or Mercedes gasoline engines for the OEM-specified OCIs, given whatever the companies think are normal driving habits for their cars (which includes long hours at high speeds on unrestricted sections of the Autobahn).
- Dexos 1 is GM's equivalent of LL-01 and 229.5.
Obviously I've left a lot of blanks to be filled in, so hopefully someone better informed can chime in.
I'm still running GCgreen. So, I am picking GC over GF-5. My vehicle specs GF-4.
Hi,
j_mac - We must go back to 1995 for the Original ester based German Castrol Formula SLX 0W-30. It was an API SH/CF and ACEA A3-96/B3-96 product and rated as Energy Conserving II. This product was Porsche Approved, and had VW500 and VW505 (issue 11:92), and BMW approvals too. It had a unique controlled phosphorous and low chlorine additive composition!
This was NOT a good product and whilst it has been "massaged" over the last 15 years it was and never has been some magic lubricant. There was always much better products available
j_mac - We must go back to 1995 for the Original ester based German Castrol Formula SLX 0W-30. It was an API SH/CF and ACEA A3-96/B3-96 product and rated as Energy Conserving II. This product was Porsche Approved, and had VW500 and VW505 (issue 11:92), and BMW approvals too. It had a unique controlled phosphorous and low chlorine additive composition!
This was NOT a good product and whilst it has been "massaged" over the last 15 years it was and never has been some magic lubricant. There was always much better products available
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
It was an API SH/CF and ACEA A3-96/B3-96 product and rated as Energy Conserving II.
Is that even technically possible? ACEA A3 means HT/HS of at least 3.5 cP. I thought this level of HT/HS was too high to qualify as energy conserving?
It was an API SH/CF and ACEA A3-96/B3-96 product and rated as Energy Conserving II.
Is that even technically possible? ACEA A3 means HT/HS of at least 3.5 cP. I thought this level of HT/HS was too high to qualify as energy conserving?
Hi,
Quattro Pete - Well it was a "Global" product in concept that never quite made it in reality! It was quickly dropped from Porsche Approval and MB and VW ceased using it here around mid 1998. It was "updated" and finally withdrawn from sale around 1999. It was the cause of an engine failure for me - the only lubricant related engine failure I have ever had!
The Castrol Edge (& Professional)and Magnatec ranges are great and very reliable products
Quattro Pete - Well it was a "Global" product in concept that never quite made it in reality! It was quickly dropped from Porsche Approval and MB and VW ceased using it here around mid 1998. It was "updated" and finally withdrawn from sale around 1999. It was the cause of an engine failure for me - the only lubricant related engine failure I have ever had!
The Castrol Edge (& Professional)and Magnatec ranges are great and very reliable products
Originally Posted By: Ibrahim
changing tracks a bit!
How would one stack
A3, BMW LL-01 & MB 229.5
against standards such as
A5, Dexos 1, HTO-06?
Just wondering how similar or different are they from one another...? any comments much appreciated!
Quite simply, A3/LL01/229.5 is a high-performance motor spec. The others are for fuel efficiency and pollution control preservation. Definitely apples to oranges.
changing tracks a bit!
How would one stack
A3, BMW LL-01 & MB 229.5
against standards such as
A5, Dexos 1, HTO-06?
Just wondering how similar or different are they from one another...? any comments much appreciated!
Quite simply, A3/LL01/229.5 is a high-performance motor spec. The others are for fuel efficiency and pollution control preservation. Definitely apples to oranges.
Fair enuff ACEA A5 & A3/B4 are totally different animals, but I am still trying to find and understand how comparable is
"Dexos 1" & "HTO-06" specs are against BMW LL-01, VW 504.00, MB 229.5
because we now have products in the market which meets sepcs as Dexos 1, HTO-06, A5/B5 along with traditional pollution control, fuel conserving specs such as A1/B1, API SN, GF-5
"Dexos 1" & "HTO-06" specs are against BMW LL-01, VW 504.00, MB 229.5
because we now have products in the market which meets sepcs as Dexos 1, HTO-06, A5/B5 along with traditional pollution control, fuel conserving specs such as A1/B1, API SN, GF-5
Still not sure what the question is, but I'll take another stab.
Fuel economy and compatibility with sensitive emissions systems both entail keeping certain additives to a minimum. That is quite compatible with specs like HTO-06, since low additive levels will tend to reduce the tendency to form deposits. On the flip side, it also makes it much harder (if not impossible) for the oil to have enough anti-wear and/or acid-fighting ability to meet the German specs you mentioned. However, Dexos 1, API SN, ILSAC GF-5, and ACEA A1 and A5 obviously are such that an emissions-friendly, fuel-conserving oil can still meet them.
Again, different specs for different applications. They are not really "comparable" in the sense that most people mean by that word.
Fuel economy and compatibility with sensitive emissions systems both entail keeping certain additives to a minimum. That is quite compatible with specs like HTO-06, since low additive levels will tend to reduce the tendency to form deposits. On the flip side, it also makes it much harder (if not impossible) for the oil to have enough anti-wear and/or acid-fighting ability to meet the German specs you mentioned. However, Dexos 1, API SN, ILSAC GF-5, and ACEA A1 and A5 obviously are such that an emissions-friendly, fuel-conserving oil can still meet them.
Again, different specs for different applications. They are not really "comparable" in the sense that most people mean by that word.
Thanks - d00df00d!
f355spider
$50 Site Donor 2026
Originally Posted By: 229
It would fail the later specifications on fuel economy and viscosity to begin with. It is for European spec'ed vehicles such as the "229.50" approval for Mercedes. It is high HTHS.
So what is the HTHS for GC? I have never seen that published.
It would fail the later specifications on fuel economy and viscosity to begin with. It is for European spec'ed vehicles such as the "229.50" approval for Mercedes. It is high HTHS.
So what is the HTHS for GC? I have never seen that published.
It's at least 3.5 cP.
- Status