Some might be interested in this.
https://mobiloil.com/en/article/why...ines/ilsac-gf-6?WT.ac=Home-T2-ILSAC-GF-6
https://mobiloil.com/en/article/why...ines/ilsac-gf-6?WT.ac=Home-T2-ILSAC-GF-6
GF-6 Coming
- Thread starter tig1
- Start date
- Status
So this is basically ILSAC catching up to SN+ and D1G2, yes?
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
So this is basically ILSAC catching up to SN+ and D1G2, yes?
ILSAC really doesn't "catch up" with SN+ or anything. API and ILSAC certifications go hand in hand, and with SP will be GF-6. Dexos1 is GM's own baby, and they are free to do with it what they wish, insofar as oil companies would be willing to formulate and sell the product.
So this is basically ILSAC catching up to SN+ and D1G2, yes?
ILSAC really doesn't "catch up" with SN+ or anything. API and ILSAC certifications go hand in hand, and with SP will be GF-6. Dexos1 is GM's own baby, and they are free to do with it what they wish, insofar as oil companies would be willing to formulate and sell the product.
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
So this is basically ILSAC catching up to SN+ and D1G2, yes?
ILSAC really doesn't "catch up" with SN+ or anything. API and ILSAC certifications go hand in hand, and with SP will be GF-6. Dexos1 is GM's own baby, and they are free to do with it what they wish, insofar as oil companies would be willing to formulate and sell the product.
Maybe "catch up" wasn't the best description but my understanding is GM was pushing for stricter ILSAC standards and just decided to go on their own with Dexos, no?
So ILSAC (GF6), which GM is a member of, is formally adopting LSPI standards that have already been in place for years now with the latest API/Dexos standards, yes???
(I'm not talking about the GF6B, just GF6)
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
So this is basically ILSAC catching up to SN+ and D1G2, yes?
ILSAC really doesn't "catch up" with SN+ or anything. API and ILSAC certifications go hand in hand, and with SP will be GF-6. Dexos1 is GM's own baby, and they are free to do with it what they wish, insofar as oil companies would be willing to formulate and sell the product.
Maybe "catch up" wasn't the best description but my understanding is GM was pushing for stricter ILSAC standards and just decided to go on their own with Dexos, no?
So ILSAC (GF6), which GM is a member of, is formally adopting LSPI standards that have already been in place for years now with the latest API/Dexos standards, yes???
(I'm not talking about the GF6B, just GF6)
Last edited:
I think GM was dissatisfied with the rate things were going or how far they were going or perhaps both. They've had an enhanced specification (i.e. the Vette spec) for years, so it's not surprising that they'd want to keep ahead of things, and that on its own isn't a dig at the API/ILSAC regime. I'm not sure how close SP/GF-6 will be to the current dexos1 standards. Mobil claims, from tig1's link, that their formulations are already GF-6 capable. Whether that applies to everything is hard to say.
We do have to be careful, here, and the API/ILSAC regime is being careful, I suspect. If you make SP/GF-6 to be virtually identical to current dexos1, then you're leaving a pile of current products hanging in the breeze. What do the oil companies do? Do they discontinue PYB, QSGB, Mobil Super convenional, and GTX, since they'll never make it at their price point? Or, do you upgrade the product significantly and then cannibalize the rest of your products? We already have enough trouble distinguishing between PP and PUP. What would be the hypothetical point to having a PYB, PP, and PUP all with the exact same specifications, including dexos1 (which PUP doesn't have right now, but that can always change), within a very narrow price range? Or do you just keep them SN/GF-5 until those become obsolete (and the GF-5 won't take long to become obsolete) and then stick with "recommended for" label thereafter, and risk not being sold in California?
I don't see an easy answer, but the path of least resistance would probably to have SP/GF-6 somewhere that would satisfy most automakers, particularly those without their own proprietary specifications. GM has their dexos1 and it has significant market penetration. They've already demonstrated they want to go above the basic ILSAC standards, but not all automakers are onboard with that.
You also have to watch to not alienate the motor oil buying public that doesn't have a new car and isn't willing and doesn't have to spend "synthetic" money for a "conventional" jug. The backwards compatibility is certainly still there, but you have to protect your brands and market share. Something like my F-150 certainly can use a dexos1 5w-30. I'd see no benefit over the conventional alternative, though, and wouldn't like the price increase.
We do have to be careful, here, and the API/ILSAC regime is being careful, I suspect. If you make SP/GF-6 to be virtually identical to current dexos1, then you're leaving a pile of current products hanging in the breeze. What do the oil companies do? Do they discontinue PYB, QSGB, Mobil Super convenional, and GTX, since they'll never make it at their price point? Or, do you upgrade the product significantly and then cannibalize the rest of your products? We already have enough trouble distinguishing between PP and PUP. What would be the hypothetical point to having a PYB, PP, and PUP all with the exact same specifications, including dexos1 (which PUP doesn't have right now, but that can always change), within a very narrow price range? Or do you just keep them SN/GF-5 until those become obsolete (and the GF-5 won't take long to become obsolete) and then stick with "recommended for" label thereafter, and risk not being sold in California?
I don't see an easy answer, but the path of least resistance would probably to have SP/GF-6 somewhere that would satisfy most automakers, particularly those without their own proprietary specifications. GM has their dexos1 and it has significant market penetration. They've already demonstrated they want to go above the basic ILSAC standards, but not all automakers are onboard with that.
You also have to watch to not alienate the motor oil buying public that doesn't have a new car and isn't willing and doesn't have to spend "synthetic" money for a "conventional" jug. The backwards compatibility is certainly still there, but you have to protect your brands and market share. Something like my F-150 certainly can use a dexos1 5w-30. I'd see no benefit over the conventional alternative, though, and wouldn't like the price increase.
Originally Posted by Garak
I think GM was dissatisfied with the rate things were going or how far they were going or perhaps both. They've had an enhanced specification (i.e. the Vette spec) for years, so it's not surprising that they'd want to keep ahead of things, and that on its own isn't a dig at the API/ILSAC regime. I'm not sure how close SP/GF-6 will be to the current dexos1 standards. Mobil claims, from tig1's link, that their formulations are already GF-6 capable. Whether that applies to everything is hard to say.
We do have to be careful, here, and the API/ILSAC regime is being careful, I suspect. If you make SP/GF-6 to be virtually identical to current dexos1, then you're leaving a pile of current products hanging in the breeze. What do the oil companies do? Do they discontinue PYB, QSGB, Mobil Super convenional, and GTX, since they'll never make it at their price point? Or, do you upgrade the product significantly and then cannibalize the rest of your products? We already have enough trouble distinguishing between PP and PUP. What would be the hypothetical point to having a PYB, PP, and PUP all with the exact same specifications, including dexos1 (which PUP doesn't have right now, but that can always change), within a very narrow price range? Or do you just keep them SN/GF-5 until those become obsolete (and the GF-5 won't take long to become obsolete) and then stick with "recommended for" label thereafter, and risk not being sold in California?
I don't see an easy answer, but the path of least resistance would probably to have SP/GF-6 somewhere that would satisfy most automakers, particularly those without their own proprietary specifications. GM has their dexos1 and it has significant market penetration. They've already demonstrated they want to go above the basic ILSAC standards, but not all automakers are onboard with that.
You also have to watch to not alienate the motor oil buying public that doesn't have a new car and isn't willing and doesn't have to spend "synthetic" money for a "conventional" jug. The backwards compatibility is certainly still there, but you have to protect your brands and market share. Something like my F-150 certainly can use a dexos1 5w-30. I'd see no benefit over the conventional alternative, though, and wouldn't like the price increase.
Well said, thanks.
Is it true that a conventional oil can not meet/carry the Dexos seal? Can a syn blend meet D1G2 standards? If so, then I suppose the oil companies will move away from 100% dino to syn blends???... there goes sub $15 5qt jugs, no? Well, I hope the price on the Supreme 5w20/30 wouldn't go up... that's an amazing value for a good oil.
I think GM was dissatisfied with the rate things were going or how far they were going or perhaps both. They've had an enhanced specification (i.e. the Vette spec) for years, so it's not surprising that they'd want to keep ahead of things, and that on its own isn't a dig at the API/ILSAC regime. I'm not sure how close SP/GF-6 will be to the current dexos1 standards. Mobil claims, from tig1's link, that their formulations are already GF-6 capable. Whether that applies to everything is hard to say.
We do have to be careful, here, and the API/ILSAC regime is being careful, I suspect. If you make SP/GF-6 to be virtually identical to current dexos1, then you're leaving a pile of current products hanging in the breeze. What do the oil companies do? Do they discontinue PYB, QSGB, Mobil Super convenional, and GTX, since they'll never make it at their price point? Or, do you upgrade the product significantly and then cannibalize the rest of your products? We already have enough trouble distinguishing between PP and PUP. What would be the hypothetical point to having a PYB, PP, and PUP all with the exact same specifications, including dexos1 (which PUP doesn't have right now, but that can always change), within a very narrow price range? Or do you just keep them SN/GF-5 until those become obsolete (and the GF-5 won't take long to become obsolete) and then stick with "recommended for" label thereafter, and risk not being sold in California?
I don't see an easy answer, but the path of least resistance would probably to have SP/GF-6 somewhere that would satisfy most automakers, particularly those without their own proprietary specifications. GM has their dexos1 and it has significant market penetration. They've already demonstrated they want to go above the basic ILSAC standards, but not all automakers are onboard with that.
You also have to watch to not alienate the motor oil buying public that doesn't have a new car and isn't willing and doesn't have to spend "synthetic" money for a "conventional" jug. The backwards compatibility is certainly still there, but you have to protect your brands and market share. Something like my F-150 certainly can use a dexos1 5w-30. I'd see no benefit over the conventional alternative, though, and wouldn't like the price increase.
Well said, thanks.
Is it true that a conventional oil can not meet/carry the Dexos seal? Can a syn blend meet D1G2 standards? If so, then I suppose the oil companies will move away from 100% dino to syn blends???... there goes sub $15 5qt jugs, no? Well, I hope the price on the Supreme 5w20/30 wouldn't go up... that's an amazing value for a good oil.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by Garak
I think GM was dissatisfied with the rate things were going or how far they were going or perhaps both. They've had an enhanced specification (i.e. the Vette spec) for years, so it's not surprising that they'd want to keep ahead of things, and that on its own isn't a dig at the API/ILSAC regime. I'm not sure how close SP/GF-6 will be to the current dexos1 standards. Mobil claims, from tig1's link, that their formulations are already GF-6 capable. Whether that applies to everything is hard to say.
We do have to be careful, here, and the API/ILSAC regime is being careful, I suspect. If you make SP/GF-6 to be virtually identical to current dexos1, then you're leaving a pile of current products hanging in the breeze. What do the oil companies do? Do they discontinue PYB, QSGB, Mobil Super convenional, and GTX, since they'll never make it at their price point? Or, do you upgrade the product significantly and then cannibalize the rest of your products? We already have enough trouble distinguishing between PP and PUP. What would be the hypothetical point to having a PYB, PP, and PUP all with the exact same specifications, including dexos1 (which PUP doesn't have right now, but that can always change), within a very narrow price range? Or do you just keep them SN/GF-5 until those become obsolete (and the GF-5 won't take long to become obsolete) and then stick with "recommended for" label thereafter, and risk not being sold in California?
I don't see an easy answer, but the path of least resistance would probably to have SP/GF-6 somewhere that would satisfy most automakers, particularly those without their own proprietary specifications. GM has their dexos1 and it has significant market penetration. They've already demonstrated they want to go above the basic ILSAC standards, but not all automakers are onboard with that.
You also have to watch to not alienate the motor oil buying public that doesn't have a new car and isn't willing and doesn't have to spend "synthetic" money for a "conventional" jug. The backwards compatibility is certainly still there, but you have to protect your brands and market share. Something like my F-150 certainly can use a dexos1 5w-30. I'd see no benefit over the conventional alternative, though, and wouldn't like the price increase.
Well said, thanks.
Is it true that a conventional oil can not meet/carry the Dexos seal? Can a syn blend meet D1G2 standards? If so, then I suppose the oil companies will move away from 100% dino to syn blends???... there goes sub $15 5qt jugs, no? Well, I hope the price on the Supreme 5w20/30 wouldn't go up... that's an amazing value for a good oil.
Doubt it. Theres still a crowd of people out there who still think that you cant switch back to conventional once you use synthetic. Theres always going to be a market for conventional, especially in older vehicles where people still believe that if you put synthetic in a 54 Chevy, itll blow up.
Either way if GF6 SP is gonna get pushed out, I cant wait for the GF5 SN clearance.
Edit: alot of "conventionals" are already SynBlends technically. I'm sure they're avoiding calling them synblends due to people who only use conventional. Chevron Supreme Conventional, some GTX, and others are all actually synblends but from what I've seen are marketed as conventional.
Originally Posted by Garak
I think GM was dissatisfied with the rate things were going or how far they were going or perhaps both. They've had an enhanced specification (i.e. the Vette spec) for years, so it's not surprising that they'd want to keep ahead of things, and that on its own isn't a dig at the API/ILSAC regime. I'm not sure how close SP/GF-6 will be to the current dexos1 standards. Mobil claims, from tig1's link, that their formulations are already GF-6 capable. Whether that applies to everything is hard to say.
We do have to be careful, here, and the API/ILSAC regime is being careful, I suspect. If you make SP/GF-6 to be virtually identical to current dexos1, then you're leaving a pile of current products hanging in the breeze. What do the oil companies do? Do they discontinue PYB, QSGB, Mobil Super convenional, and GTX, since they'll never make it at their price point? Or, do you upgrade the product significantly and then cannibalize the rest of your products? We already have enough trouble distinguishing between PP and PUP. What would be the hypothetical point to having a PYB, PP, and PUP all with the exact same specifications, including dexos1 (which PUP doesn't have right now, but that can always change), within a very narrow price range? Or do you just keep them SN/GF-5 until those become obsolete (and the GF-5 won't take long to become obsolete) and then stick with "recommended for" label thereafter, and risk not being sold in California?
I don't see an easy answer, but the path of least resistance would probably to have SP/GF-6 somewhere that would satisfy most automakers, particularly those without their own proprietary specifications. GM has their dexos1 and it has significant market penetration. They've already demonstrated they want to go above the basic ILSAC standards, but not all automakers are onboard with that.
You also have to watch to not alienate the motor oil buying public that doesn't have a new car and isn't willing and doesn't have to spend "synthetic" money for a "conventional" jug. The backwards compatibility is certainly still there, but you have to protect your brands and market share. Something like my F-150 certainly can use a dexos1 5w-30. I'd see no benefit over the conventional alternative, though, and wouldn't like the price increase.
Well said, thanks.
Is it true that a conventional oil can not meet/carry the Dexos seal? Can a syn blend meet D1G2 standards? If so, then I suppose the oil companies will move away from 100% dino to syn blends???... there goes sub $15 5qt jugs, no? Well, I hope the price on the Supreme 5w20/30 wouldn't go up... that's an amazing value for a good oil.
Doubt it. Theres still a crowd of people out there who still think that you cant switch back to conventional once you use synthetic. Theres always going to be a market for conventional, especially in older vehicles where people still believe that if you put synthetic in a 54 Chevy, itll blow up.
Either way if GF6 SP is gonna get pushed out, I cant wait for the GF5 SN clearance.
Edit: alot of "conventionals" are already SynBlends technically. I'm sure they're avoiding calling them synblends due to people who only use conventional. Chevron Supreme Conventional, some GTX, and others are all actually synblends but from what I've seen are marketed as conventional.
Last edited:
For me the GF-6 coming means the possibility of good deals on GF-5 SN oils. In my current fleet the change to GF-6 more than likely won't amount to a hill of beans in additional wear protection or engine cleanliness. So I'll use the intro to hopefully save some money on oil clearance sales. As a result I will let my stash run down a bit in anticipation of lower prices coming soon, I hope.
Originally Posted by demarpaint
For me the GF-6 coming means the possibility of good deals on GF-5 SN oils. In my current fleet the change to GF-6 more than likely won't amount to a hill of beans in additional wear protection or engine cleanliness. So I'll use the intro to hopefully save some money on oil clearance sales. As a result I will let my stash run down a bit in anticipation of lower prices coming soon, I hope.
+1
Just curious, how long after the new standard is adopted does it usually take before you start seeing it owners manuals, 1,2,3yrs??
Wonder if GF6 will preclude use of/drive up prices on syn blends and conventionals because GF6 has moved closer to D1G2? As mentioned by GumbyJarvis, I can't imagine the oil companies ditching dino or slapping on huge price increases because of the new standard or maybe they will?. I kinda like getting 5qts of Supreme 5w30 for $12 and change. I suppose they don't have to change a thing and just keep marketing it as a GF5/SN oil to keep the price down. If I do as planned, I'll be picking up a new car for myself and something used for the kids in the next couple years. I guess I'll have to get use to stocking multiple grades or switch everything over to full syn. Dunno...
For me the GF-6 coming means the possibility of good deals on GF-5 SN oils. In my current fleet the change to GF-6 more than likely won't amount to a hill of beans in additional wear protection or engine cleanliness. So I'll use the intro to hopefully save some money on oil clearance sales. As a result I will let my stash run down a bit in anticipation of lower prices coming soon, I hope.
+1
Just curious, how long after the new standard is adopted does it usually take before you start seeing it owners manuals, 1,2,3yrs??
Wonder if GF6 will preclude use of/drive up prices on syn blends and conventionals because GF6 has moved closer to D1G2? As mentioned by GumbyJarvis, I can't imagine the oil companies ditching dino or slapping on huge price increases because of the new standard or maybe they will?. I kinda like getting 5qts of Supreme 5w30 for $12 and change. I suppose they don't have to change a thing and just keep marketing it as a GF5/SN oil to keep the price down. If I do as planned, I'll be picking up a new car for myself and something used for the kids in the next couple years. I guess I'll have to get use to stocking multiple grades or switch everything over to full syn. Dunno...
Last edited:
Originally Posted by demarpaint
For me the GF-6 coming means the possibility of good deals on GF-5 SN oils. In my current fleet the change to GF-6 more than likely won't amount to a hill of beans in additional wear protection or engine cleanliness. So I'll use the intro to hopefully save some money on oil clearance sales. As a result I will let my stash run down a bit in anticipation of lower prices coming soon, I hope.
+2
For me the GF-6 coming means the possibility of good deals on GF-5 SN oils. In my current fleet the change to GF-6 more than likely won't amount to a hill of beans in additional wear protection or engine cleanliness. So I'll use the intro to hopefully save some money on oil clearance sales. As a result I will let my stash run down a bit in anticipation of lower prices coming soon, I hope.
+2
Garak makes good points, as there is already resistance to some of the oil used now..
I don't see too much more in the way of changes coming for "SP" if it's coming. One big reason- oil won't be used in these upcoming electric cars. Especially with the mandates coming for many countries to do this soon.
Sure there will be some ICE engines for a while, but they no longer become the main focus.....
I don't see too much more in the way of changes coming for "SP" if it's coming. One big reason- oil won't be used in these upcoming electric cars. Especially with the mandates coming for many countries to do this soon.
Sure there will be some ICE engines for a while, but they no longer become the main focus.....
I drive 340 miles to visit my daughter, head wind, tail wind, hot, cold, rain. In a wheelchair van. I do not see that happening anytime soon electric. I am not moving to Iowa. Too [censored] cold. Moving her is difficult with the care involved.
So I will need gas. Rod
So I will need gas. Rod
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
We feel the weather difference even more here. Southern Lower Michigan and Upper Northern Michigan have a larger temperature disparity than from Southern Missouri to Northern Iowa.
....... and we never even have to leave our home state. Michigan may have the largest disparity of all 48 continental states.
....... and we never even have to leave our home state. Michigan may have the largest disparity of all 48 continental states.
This list doesn't include Michigan among the states with wide extremes https://www.earthnetworks.com/blog/swing-states-americas-extreme-temperature-ranges/
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
We feel the weather difference even more here. Southern Lower Michigan and Upper Northern Michigan have a larger temperature disparity than from Southern Missouri to Northern Iowa.
....... and we never even have to leave our home state. Michigan may have the largest disparity of all 48 continental states.
Yep, it's one thing here in MI we can all agree on....
We feel the weather difference even more here. Southern Lower Michigan and Upper Northern Michigan have a larger temperature disparity than from Southern Missouri to Northern Iowa.
....... and we never even have to leave our home state. Michigan may have the largest disparity of all 48 continental states.
Yep, it's one thing here in MI we can all agree on....
Originally Posted by daves87rs
Garak makes good points, as there is already resistance to some of the oil used now..
I don't see too much more in the way of changes coming for "SP" if it's coming. One big reason- oil won't be used in these upcoming electric cars. Especially with the mandates coming for many countries to do this soon.
Sure there will be some ICE engines for a while, but they no longer become the main focus.....
We'd all be driving electric cars as of two decades ago if technology was the only factor. Illegal drugs are the only world industry that surpasses the scale of the petroleum industry thus there will never be a significant shift in resources and development until the wells literally run dry. That would be global economic suicide. United States (#1) and China are in the top 5 of countries most populated with vehicles and as of right now the least likely to participate in any environmental mandate so I doubt anybody is shaking in their boots over environmental mandates.
All that to say your crazy if you think there is going to be some sort of stagnation based on less emphasis of developing gas/desiel engines.
Garak makes good points, as there is already resistance to some of the oil used now..
I don't see too much more in the way of changes coming for "SP" if it's coming. One big reason- oil won't be used in these upcoming electric cars. Especially with the mandates coming for many countries to do this soon.
Sure there will be some ICE engines for a while, but they no longer become the main focus.....
We'd all be driving electric cars as of two decades ago if technology was the only factor. Illegal drugs are the only world industry that surpasses the scale of the petroleum industry thus there will never be a significant shift in resources and development until the wells literally run dry. That would be global economic suicide. United States (#1) and China are in the top 5 of countries most populated with vehicles and as of right now the least likely to participate in any environmental mandate so I doubt anybody is shaking in their boots over environmental mandates.
All that to say your crazy if you think there is going to be some sort of stagnation based on less emphasis of developing gas/desiel engines.
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Is it true that a conventional oil can not meet/carry the Dexos seal? Can a syn blend meet D1G2 standards? If so, then I suppose the oil companies will move away from 100% dino to syn blends???... there goes sub $15 5qt jugs, no? Well, I hope the price on the Supreme 5w20/30 wouldn't go up... that's an amazing value for a good oil.
I'm not sure if even any blends are carrying the latest dexos1 seal. I know that some were for the first generation, but at least some, if not all, did not get the approval for the second generation. That's why I'm not convinced that the SP/GF-6 will be an absolute equal of dexos1 second generation. There will be resistance and confusion, to say the least.
stanlee: OT, but an electric vehicle up here is not terribly useful up here for common usage patterns.
Is it true that a conventional oil can not meet/carry the Dexos seal? Can a syn blend meet D1G2 standards? If so, then I suppose the oil companies will move away from 100% dino to syn blends???... there goes sub $15 5qt jugs, no? Well, I hope the price on the Supreme 5w20/30 wouldn't go up... that's an amazing value for a good oil.
I'm not sure if even any blends are carrying the latest dexos1 seal. I know that some were for the first generation, but at least some, if not all, did not get the approval for the second generation. That's why I'm not convinced that the SP/GF-6 will be an absolute equal of dexos1 second generation. There will be resistance and confusion, to say the least.
stanlee: OT, but an electric vehicle up here is not terribly useful up here for common usage patterns.
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Is it true that a conventional oil can not meet/carry the Dexos seal? Can a syn blend meet D1G2 standards? If so, then I suppose the oil companies will move away from 100% dino to syn blends???... there goes sub $15 5qt jugs, no? Well, I hope the price on the Supreme 5w20/30 wouldn't go up... that's an amazing value for a good oil.
I'm not sure if even any blends are carrying the latest dexos1 seal. I know that some were for the first generation, but at least some, if not all, did not get the approval for the second generation. That's why I'm not convinced that the SP/GF-6 will be an absolute equal of dexos1 second generation. There will be resistance and confusion, to say the least.
stanlee: OT, but an electric vehicle up here is not terribly useful up here for common usage patterns.
I have no idea how many more there are out there but QS makes a 5w30 SynBlend that is D1G2, SN+/GF6.. this may be the only one for all I know. But it does show at least that a syn blend can meet D1G2. WM carries it..
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2019/06/full-85545-33407-f10a54bf_6f00_44ef_9d59_20e47db04a46_2.d58268ec3e66d931c2b1f95d7943f11f.jpeg "[Linked Image]")
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Is it true that a conventional oil can not meet/carry the Dexos seal? Can a syn blend meet D1G2 standards? If so, then I suppose the oil companies will move away from 100% dino to syn blends???... there goes sub $15 5qt jugs, no? Well, I hope the price on the Supreme 5w20/30 wouldn't go up... that's an amazing value for a good oil.
I'm not sure if even any blends are carrying the latest dexos1 seal. I know that some were for the first generation, but at least some, if not all, did not get the approval for the second generation. That's why I'm not convinced that the SP/GF-6 will be an absolute equal of dexos1 second generation. There will be resistance and confusion, to say the least.
stanlee: OT, but an electric vehicle up here is not terribly useful up here for common usage patterns.
I have no idea how many more there are out there but QS makes a 5w30 SynBlend that is D1G2, SN+/GF6.. this may be the only one for all I know. But it does show at least that a syn blend can meet D1G2. WM carries it..
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
I have no idea how many more there are out there but QS makes a 5w30 SynBlend that is D1G2, SN+/GF6.. this may be the only one for all I know. But it does show at least that a syn blend can meet D1G2. WM carries it.
Pennzoil probably still has a licensed one, then, too. I know Petro-Canada's and Imperial Oil's equivalents disappeared, at least for a time.
I have no idea how many more there are out there but QS makes a 5w30 SynBlend that is D1G2, SN+/GF6.. this may be the only one for all I know. But it does show at least that a syn blend can meet D1G2. WM carries it.
Pennzoil probably still has a licensed one, then, too. I know Petro-Canada's and Imperial Oil's equivalents disappeared, at least for a time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
