Only six brands are on the list of GM4718M approved motor oils. Any idea why so few? Is it too tough of a standard for brands such as Amsoil,Royal Purple, Valvoline, etc., to meet? Or, do these companies, for some reason, feel that it is not worth pursuing?
GM4718M
- Thread starter 77GrandPrix
- Start date
- Status
Good question. I emailed Valvoline and here's the response I got from them.
" You will not void your warranty using Valvoline SynPower products as your motor oil, as Valvoline stands behind this specification 100% for your Corvette. We are not listed on the GM Technical Bulletin simply because we are not a GM Approved supplier for this specification. We still recommend our products 100% for the GM4718m for Corvette and Cadillac models".
And here's a response I got from Conoco Phillips when I asked them about Kendall full synthetic.
"There was a problem when API went SM and ILSAC went GF4. The specs for the GM4718m changed slightly and our full synthetic oil which previously met that spec no longer meets it now. We are working to correct this, but at this time we do not meet it.
I dumped the SynPower out of my 'Vette and put M1 back in, vowing to never stray again.
" You will not void your warranty using Valvoline SynPower products as your motor oil, as Valvoline stands behind this specification 100% for your Corvette. We are not listed on the GM Technical Bulletin simply because we are not a GM Approved supplier for this specification. We still recommend our products 100% for the GM4718m for Corvette and Cadillac models".
And here's a response I got from Conoco Phillips when I asked them about Kendall full synthetic.
"There was a problem when API went SM and ILSAC went GF4. The specs for the GM4718m changed slightly and our full synthetic oil which previously met that spec no longer meets it now. We are working to correct this, but at this time we do not meet it.
I dumped the SynPower out of my 'Vette and put M1 back in, vowing to never stray again.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Sometimes those standards are CAFE driven -- not best protection driven.
This multiple GM owner ignores the GM approved list. I feel my vehicles thank me every time the ignition key is turned on. I probably lose (1) MPH in mileage tests, but my wallet isn't complaining yet.
This multiple GM owner ignores the GM approved list. I feel my vehicles thank me every time the ignition key is turned on. I probably lose (1) MPH in mileage tests, but my wallet isn't complaining yet.
Last edited:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but GM4718M has nothing to do with CAFE standards. It has to do with handling heat in absence of an oil cooler. IMHO it's a very good spec. I may also be wrong about this, but I don't think there are any conventional (dino) oils out there that meet that spec. It takes a synthetic oil.
In addition to Mobil1, Pennzoil Platinum meets GM4718M.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but GM4718M has nothing to do with CAFE standards. It has to do with handling heat in absence of an oil cooler. IMHO it's a very good spec. I may also be wrong about this, but I don't think there are any conventional (dino) oils out there that meet that spec. It takes a synthetic oil.
True. Pennzoil Platinum DOES meet this spec and is every bit as good as M1.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but GM4718M has nothing to do with CAFE standards. It has to do with handling heat in absence of an oil cooler. IMHO it's a very good spec. I may also be wrong about this, but I don't think there are any conventional (dino) oils out there that meet that spec. It takes a synthetic oil.
True. Pennzoil Platinum DOES meet this spec and is every bit as good as M1.
Shaeffer's Supreme 9000...that is what I use in my Trailblazer SS that has the LS2 Corvette engine in it.
I read the spec sheet on the Supreme 7000 and found that it met the standard in 2005, but a revision of the document in 2007 took that spec away and it seems to have popped up on the Supreme 9000 specs for 2007.
I read the spec sheet on the Supreme 7000 and found that it met the standard in 2005, but a revision of the document in 2007 took that spec away and it seems to have popped up on the Supreme 9000 specs for 2007.
It just seems strange to me that more of the major brands are not on the list. I find it hard to believe that they cannot formulate a product that GM would approve. With that said,I wonder if it is merely a business decision,based on cost,to not pursue full approval. After all, if I'm not mistaken, all of the vehicles that require GM4718M approved oils are filled with Mobil 1 at the factory and Mobil 1 is the GM recommended oil. The Mobil 1 logo is even on the filler cap. It stands to reason that the majority of the owners of these high dollar vehicles will use what the manufacturer recommends, I would. Perhaps the other oil makers just don't see GM4718M approval as providing "bang for the buck".
Originally Posted By: 77GrandPrix
It just seems strange to me that more of the major brands are not on the list. I find it hard to believe that they cannot formulate a product that GM would approve. With that said,I wonder if it is merely a business decision,based on cost,to not pursue full approval. After all, if I'm not mistaken, all of the vehicles that require GM4718M approved oils are filled with Mobil 1 at the factory and Mobil 1 is the GM recommended oil. The Mobil 1 logo is even on the filler cap. It stands to reason that the majority of the owners of these high dollar vehicles will use what the manufacturer recommends, I would. Perhaps the other oil makers just don't see GM4718M approval as providing "bang for the buck".
How many people would know that Castrol Syntec produced 26% more deposits than Mobil 1 in a standard TEOST test? Or that Mobil 7500 produced 15% less deposits than Syntec?
Deposit and sludge protection are very crucial in some engines.
It just seems strange to me that more of the major brands are not on the list. I find it hard to believe that they cannot formulate a product that GM would approve. With that said,I wonder if it is merely a business decision,based on cost,to not pursue full approval. After all, if I'm not mistaken, all of the vehicles that require GM4718M approved oils are filled with Mobil 1 at the factory and Mobil 1 is the GM recommended oil. The Mobil 1 logo is even on the filler cap. It stands to reason that the majority of the owners of these high dollar vehicles will use what the manufacturer recommends, I would. Perhaps the other oil makers just don't see GM4718M approval as providing "bang for the buck".
How many people would know that Castrol Syntec produced 26% more deposits than Mobil 1 in a standard TEOST test? Or that Mobil 7500 produced 15% less deposits than Syntec?
Deposit and sludge protection are very crucial in some engines.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: 77GrandPrix
It just seems strange to me that more of the major brands are not on the list. I find it hard to believe that they cannot formulate a product that GM would approve. With that said,I wonder if it is merely a business decision,based on cost,to not pursue full approval. After all, if I'm not mistaken, all of the vehicles that require GM4718M approved oils are filled with Mobil 1 at the factory and Mobil 1 is the GM recommended oil. The Mobil 1 logo is even on the filler cap. It stands to reason that the majority of the owners of these high dollar vehicles will use what the manufacturer recommends, I would. Perhaps the other oil makers just don't see GM4718M approval as providing "bang for the buck".
How many people would know that Castrol Syntec produced 26% more deposits than Mobil 1 in a standard TEOST test? Or that Mobil 7500 produced 15% less deposits than Syntec?
Deposit and sludge protection are very crucial in some engines.
Where would one find that information?
Originally Posted By: 77GrandPrix
It just seems strange to me that more of the major brands are not on the list. I find it hard to believe that they cannot formulate a product that GM would approve. With that said,I wonder if it is merely a business decision,based on cost,to not pursue full approval. After all, if I'm not mistaken, all of the vehicles that require GM4718M approved oils are filled with Mobil 1 at the factory and Mobil 1 is the GM recommended oil. The Mobil 1 logo is even on the filler cap. It stands to reason that the majority of the owners of these high dollar vehicles will use what the manufacturer recommends, I would. Perhaps the other oil makers just don't see GM4718M approval as providing "bang for the buck".
How many people would know that Castrol Syntec produced 26% more deposits than Mobil 1 in a standard TEOST test? Or that Mobil 7500 produced 15% less deposits than Syntec?
Deposit and sludge protection are very crucial in some engines.
Where would one find that information?
Please understand that I am only trying to gain knowledge. I am not trying to bash Mobil 1, ExxonMobil or GM.
Patman
Staff member
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
Royal Purple meets this spec. Says so on the bottle. Someone else brought it up and they are correct. Many fluid mfg's don't bother to get certified because it cost them a lot of money to do so.
I think that's exactly it! I would still feel more comfortable using one of the oils on "the list" if I had a new Corvette under warranty, but technically speaking if the oil passes the spec, but isn't on the registered list from GM, it'll still get the job done just as well.
Royal Purple meets this spec. Says so on the bottle. Someone else brought it up and they are correct. Many fluid mfg's don't bother to get certified because it cost them a lot of money to do so.
I think that's exactly it! I would still feel more comfortable using one of the oils on "the list" if I had a new Corvette under warranty, but technically speaking if the oil passes the spec, but isn't on the registered list from GM, it'll still get the job done just as well.
Originally Posted By: 77GrandPrix
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: 77GrandPrix
It just seems strange to me that more of the major brands are not on the list. I find it hard to believe that they cannot formulate a product that GM would approve. With that said,I wonder if it is merely a business decision,based on cost,to not pursue full approval. After all, if I'm not mistaken, all of the vehicles that require GM4718M approved oils are filled with Mobil 1 at the factory and Mobil 1 is the GM recommended oil. The Mobil 1 logo is even on the filler cap. It stands to reason that the majority of the owners of these high dollar vehicles will use what the manufacturer recommends, I would. Perhaps the other oil makers just don't see GM4718M approval as providing "bang for the buck".
How many people would know that Castrol Syntec produced 26% more deposits than Mobil 1 in a standard TEOST test? Or that Mobil 7500 produced 15% less deposits than Syntec?
Deposit and sludge protection are very crucial in some engines.
Where would one find that information?
More than one poster has quoted the supposed results of the TEOST test, but I've never seen where the test results came from. Information from the Honda brochure has been posted, but that brochure does not contain the names of the other oils tested. The posters seem to like to quote the results and provide the names of the other oils, but I've never seen the source of what they post. Perhaps they will respond this time.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: 77GrandPrix
It just seems strange to me that more of the major brands are not on the list. I find it hard to believe that they cannot formulate a product that GM would approve. With that said,I wonder if it is merely a business decision,based on cost,to not pursue full approval. After all, if I'm not mistaken, all of the vehicles that require GM4718M approved oils are filled with Mobil 1 at the factory and Mobil 1 is the GM recommended oil. The Mobil 1 logo is even on the filler cap. It stands to reason that the majority of the owners of these high dollar vehicles will use what the manufacturer recommends, I would. Perhaps the other oil makers just don't see GM4718M approval as providing "bang for the buck".
How many people would know that Castrol Syntec produced 26% more deposits than Mobil 1 in a standard TEOST test? Or that Mobil 7500 produced 15% less deposits than Syntec?
Deposit and sludge protection are very crucial in some engines.
Where would one find that information?
More than one poster has quoted the supposed results of the TEOST test, but I've never seen where the test results came from. Information from the Honda brochure has been posted, but that brochure does not contain the names of the other oils tested. The posters seem to like to quote the results and provide the names of the other oils, but I've never seen the source of what they post. Perhaps they will respond this time.
Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
Royal Purple meets this spec. Says so on the bottle. Someone else brought it up and they are correct. Many fluid mfg's don't bother to get certified because it cost them a lot of money to do so.
I think that's exactly it! I would still feel more comfortable using one of the oils on "the list" if I had a new Corvette under warranty, but technically speaking if the oil passes the spec, but isn't on the registered list from GM, it'll still get the job done just as well.
No intent to bash RP, but if RP say it passes GM4718M why isn't it on GM list?
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
Royal Purple meets this spec. Says so on the bottle. Someone else brought it up and they are correct. Many fluid mfg's don't bother to get certified because it cost them a lot of money to do so.
I think that's exactly it! I would still feel more comfortable using one of the oils on "the list" if I had a new Corvette under warranty, but technically speaking if the oil passes the spec, but isn't on the registered list from GM, it'll still get the job done just as well.
No intent to bash RP, but if RP say it passes GM4718M why isn't it on GM list?
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but GM4718M has nothing to do with CAFE standards. It has to do with handling heat in absence of an oil cooler. IMHO it's a very good spec. I may also be wrong about this, but I don't think there are any conventional (dino) oils out there that meet that spec. It takes a synthetic oil.
Not related to CAFE at all. No dino oil makes the list. GM owners manuals (that require GM4718M) specifically caution that not all syn oils meet this spec (it's NOT a "synthetic" spec)
Displaying the spec name signifies independent validation of engine test results. If a company pays the $$$ to actually run the engine tests that are part of the spec - and passes - they'd be idiots not to get their data independently validated - the $$$ was already spent to run the passing test.
As for Valvoline, they neatly list all the other European specs that they paid big $$ for testing and independent validation. These European specs apply to a relatively small segment of the US market. Ignoring the much larger GM4718M vehicle population makes absolutely no sense. Besides - Valvoline did let GM independently validate their synthetic offering - it clearly is listed on the conventional oil level GM6094M approval list.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but GM4718M has nothing to do with CAFE standards. It has to do with handling heat in absence of an oil cooler. IMHO it's a very good spec. I may also be wrong about this, but I don't think there are any conventional (dino) oils out there that meet that spec. It takes a synthetic oil.
Not related to CAFE at all. No dino oil makes the list. GM owners manuals (that require GM4718M) specifically caution that not all syn oils meet this spec (it's NOT a "synthetic" spec)
Displaying the spec name signifies independent validation of engine test results. If a company pays the $$$ to actually run the engine tests that are part of the spec - and passes - they'd be idiots not to get their data independently validated - the $$$ was already spent to run the passing test.
As for Valvoline, they neatly list all the other European specs that they paid big $$ for testing and independent validation. These European specs apply to a relatively small segment of the US market. Ignoring the much larger GM4718M vehicle population makes absolutely no sense. Besides - Valvoline did let GM independently validate their synthetic offering - it clearly is listed on the conventional oil level GM6094M approval list.
An interesting one is there is a Castrol oil that meets it. Castrol SLX Professional 4718...no idea where to obtain it, generally SLX oils are only available through dealers and also generally not on this continent.
Originally Posted By: OilGuy
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but GM4718M has nothing to do with CAFE standards. It has to do with handling heat in absence of an oil cooler. IMHO it's a very good spec. I may also be wrong about this, but I don't think there are any conventional (dino) oils out there that meet that spec. It takes a synthetic oil.
Not related to CAFE at all. No dino oil makes the list. GM owners manuals (that require GM4718M) specifically caution that not all syn oils meet this spec (it's NOT a "synthetic" spec)
Displaying the spec name signifies independent validation of engine test results. If a company pays the $$$ to actually run the engine tests that are part of the spec - and passes - they'd be idiots not to get their data independently validated - the $$$ was already spent to run the passing test.
As for Valvoline, they neatly list all the other European specs that they paid big $$ for testing and independent validation. These European specs apply to a relatively small segment of the US market. Ignoring the much larger GM4718M vehicle population makes absolutely no sense. Besides - Valvoline did let GM independently validate their synthetic offering - it clearly is listed on the conventional oil level GM6094M approval list.
I know it is not a synthetic spec. But it takes a synthetic oil to meet the spec. That is what I was trying to get across. Sorry if that was not clear.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but GM4718M has nothing to do with CAFE standards. It has to do with handling heat in absence of an oil cooler. IMHO it's a very good spec. I may also be wrong about this, but I don't think there are any conventional (dino) oils out there that meet that spec. It takes a synthetic oil.
Not related to CAFE at all. No dino oil makes the list. GM owners manuals (that require GM4718M) specifically caution that not all syn oils meet this spec (it's NOT a "synthetic" spec)
Displaying the spec name signifies independent validation of engine test results. If a company pays the $$$ to actually run the engine tests that are part of the spec - and passes - they'd be idiots not to get their data independently validated - the $$$ was already spent to run the passing test.
As for Valvoline, they neatly list all the other European specs that they paid big $$ for testing and independent validation. These European specs apply to a relatively small segment of the US market. Ignoring the much larger GM4718M vehicle population makes absolutely no sense. Besides - Valvoline did let GM independently validate their synthetic offering - it clearly is listed on the conventional oil level GM6094M approval list.
I know it is not a synthetic spec. But it takes a synthetic oil to meet the spec. That is what I was trying to get across. Sorry if that was not clear.
- Status
Similar threads
