GM4718M

[OilGuy]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
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.


No problem, I knew where you were coming from - perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my clarification I just wanted to add that it was interesting that GM went out of their way to state that not all syn oils meet GM4718M because some customers may assume to use any oil marketed as a "synthetic".

(Copied directly from a 2004 CTS owners manual):
What Kind of Engine Oil to Use
Look for two things:
• GM4718M
Your vehicle’s engine requires a special oil meeting
GM Standard GM4718M. Oils meeting this
standard may be identified as synthetic. However,
not all synthetic oils will meet this GM standard.
You should look for and use only an oil that meets
GM Standard GM4718M.

Refreshing to see that ConocoPhillips has integrity as well with their truthfull answer.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: 3putter
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.

That's interesting information.

 

[ClawSS]

I bet that is why Schaeffer's 7000 revised the specs and let the Supreme 9000 carry the rating

 

[OilGuy]

I'm not aware of any Schaeffer product that has been independently validated by GM as being GM4718M approved; same goes for the conventional-level GM6094M spec as well.

 

[ClawSS]

Did I misread??? You are saying that until an independant analysis is done that the specifications stated by the manufacturer are false, misleading, and borderline illegal? That until GM physically accepts the $$$ necessary for them to say you are allowed to use this oil, that the tests done to meet and exceed the written specifications might as well been written by an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters...oh wait, that's Shakespeare.

Quote:
Supreme 9000 Racing Oil SAE 5W-30 meets and exceeds the following specifications and manufacturers’ requirements: MIL-PRF- 46152E, CID A-A-52039B, API Service Classification SM/CF, ILSAC GF-4, ACEA A1/B1, ACEA A5/B5-04, JIS K 2202, Ford WWS M2C929-A, General Motors 6049M, General Motors 4718M, Chrysler MS 6395, Daimler Chrysler MB 229.1 and MB 229.2


#9003 SUPREME 9000 SAE 5W-30 API SM/CF

 

[JAG]

Yes Schaeffer is being misleading. One example is claiming to meet MB 229.1 spec which requires, among other things, HTHS viscosity of >=3.5 cP which that oil does not have. It's offensive to me. As if the consumer is stupid and won't know that they are lying.

 

[OilGuy]

Approvals are indeed issued for many specs AFTER the products are independently validated to pass the minimum requirements. The specs are tied to actual ENGINE tests, which indeed can be costly to run (but are part of product development for most of the industry) . If an oil marketer chooses not to run the industry standard engine tests with their unique formulations, that's fine. If consumers want to blindly believe a company w/o independent validation, that fine. There are many choices of products that get independently validated to have performance specs they claim.

 

[ClawSS]

Yeah JAG, probably need to stick with the

Schaeffer Micron Moly 5W-30
Schaeffer Micron Moly 10W-40
Schaeffer Supreme 7000 10W-30

All of which meet the Mercedes req. you mention based on the list from MB themselves.

It usually is all about the money...money one one side or the other.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

It is NOT always about "the Money". Some API and other lube testing/certification is relatively inexpensive, as has been discussed many times on this site, yet some oil companies do not take the time or bother to have their formulations confirmed. And it is understandable as it IS a lot easier and less bother to just say "meets or exceeds" API whatever or "conforms to" Mil spec whatever, in an advertisement...

 

[ClawSS]

Oh come now, George. It is always about the money. Never is there a thing in this world that does not end up being about the money. Time is money. Not taking the time, not wanting to bother = not wanting to pay for someone's time to do the work. Relatively inexpensive must be played out in the world of ROI. If one does not see the ROI that is deemed worthy by the bean counters, it just doesn't happen.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Iain
No intent to bash RP, but if RP say it passes GM4718M why isn't it on GM list?

They are not on GM's list because they have not submitted, and paid, for their oil to be tested by GM. You are not required by law to use a GM certified oil to preserve your warranty. Just an oil that meets or exceeds the required oil specification. RP does this( hence them saying their oil meets the GM4781M spec on the bottle - they don't say they are certified - there is a difference )and GM can NOT void your warranty just because RP( or any oil )isn't "certified" to meet GM4718M.

GM's "list" is only oils that have actually been tested by GM and who's mfg has paid GM for the "privelage" of being on that list. Being on that list means nothing really if you know the oil standard specifications as well as how the oil you want to use has tested for those spec's.

 

[HondaMan]

I am surprised Schaeffer would list their approvals incorrectly or pull the 'play with words' game that others do .... in fact most often on their Tech Sheets, Schaeffer will list their approval numbers.

That being said, on their SAT204... they list Allison C4 but are NOT on the Allison list. Schaeffer does not offer their approval number in this regard.

 

[cheetahdriver]

sorry, but that is not the case. GM4718M does not require or even ask for testing by GM. what they do ask for is testing by a lab that has passed a proficiency testing program approved by GMPT (GM PowerTrain) Materials Engineering. there is no fee involved, but there is quite a rigorous requirement of paperwork, which is probably why quite a few pass it up.

as far as actual testing, there is a significant difference in the sequence IIIG (called out as such, not the IIIE as reported earlier) test. the % increase in the Kinematic Viscosity Increase @ 40°C is almost cut in half. other changes that jump out at me are the phosphorous amount is quite limited and there is a EOFT test that is a GM spec not listed in the ISLAC GF-4 spec. there are also some requirements about reporting changes in oil add packs and such.

there is also a low temperature pumping requirement not appearing in GF-4.

this is not a spec that i would think would be too difficult to pass with a good oil. OTOH, there are considerable paperwork issues, and some issues with substitutions. GM's spec, GM's rules. i will say that an oil that passes GM4718M is probably one of the more premium brews.

and, as i have said before, if GM doesn't list it on the list, it doesn't meet the requirements. it may be better, may be worse, you don't know, and there is no way to tell. one of the principal pains about this spec is that there are pretty rigorous requirements for reformulations. alot of boutique oils just aren't that consistent as to their suppliers. some are, and just don't want the paperwork hassle. but they don't meet the spec if they aren't on GM's list. period.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Again, back to the "time/money" discussion.. There is at least one designer oil company whose president's ego will not allow his company to be lowered to the point of having to do outside testing... He has publicly shared his views many, many times...
So, in this wonderful world of bean counters, cost justifiations, there are some mavericks in the industry who simply refuse to comply with outside confirmation based on their own decisions...

 

[cheetahdriver]

and as long as those mavericks don't put anything about GM4718M, we are golden.

it's when they start doing the infamous "meets or exceeds" that we start having problems.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
sorry, but that is not the case. GM4718M does not require or even ask for testing by GM. what they do ask for is testing by a lab that has passed a proficiency testing program approved by GMPT (GM PowerTrain) Materials Engineering. there is no fee involved, but there is quite a rigorous requirement of paperwork, which is probably why quite a few pass it up.

as far as actual testing, there is a significant difference in the sequence IIIG (called out as such, not the IIIE as reported earlier) test. the % increase in the Kinematic Viscosity Increase @ 40°C is almost cut in half. other changes that jump out at me are the phosphorous amount is quite limited and there is a EOFT test that is a GM spec not listed in the ISLAC GF-4 spec. there are also some requirements about reporting changes in oil add packs and such.

there is also a low temperature pumping requirement not appearing in GF-4.

this is not a spec that i would think would be too difficult to pass with a good oil. OTOH, there are considerable paperwork issues, and some issues with substitutions. GM's spec, GM's rules. i will say that an oil that passes GM4718M is probably one of the more premium brews.

and, as i have said before, if GM doesn't list it on the list, it doesn't meet the requirements. it may be better, may be worse, you don't know, and there is no way to tell. one of the principal pains about this spec is that there are pretty rigorous requirements for reformulations. alot of boutique oils just aren't that consistent as to their suppliers. some are, and just don't want the paperwork hassle. but they don't meet the spec if they aren't on GM's list. period.


Not sure what to say. It does cost these oil companies to have their oil tested and they do have to pay to be certified. I find it humrous that you would say an oil doesn't meet a specification just because it isn't on the list. Man that is a riot. GM4781M is not a secret spec that we can not find out about. You can buy a copy of the spec online and then find out the test requirements and compare it to the spec's on the oil you want to use. If said oil meets or exceeds all those tests requirements then it meets or exceeds the spec and you are fine using it. Not being on GM's list does not disqualify it. The list means squat. It is just a place to go look for an oil that meets the spec so you don't have to research the test data yourself. I feel bad for people that think otherwise because you are mistaken and misinformed and are being locked into a small product group.

Under the law you are NOT required to use a certified product nor can any new car mfg void your warranty because you use an oil that isn't on their certified list. As long as the fluid you want to use meets or exceeds the specification in question BY LAW you have met your obligation to preserve your warranty. Royal Purple oil as an example meets or exceeds all aspects of the GM4781M oil standard and thus, despite not being on GM's list, is fine for use and GM would have to prove otherwise to void you. They couldn't do it as the oil would pass their test with flying colors.

You also said...

Quote:
it's when they start doing the infamous "meets or exceeds" that we start having problems.


Why do you consider meets or exceeds to be infamous and the start of problems? It is the LAW and just how things are. If their product meets or exceeds the spec in question they have every right to let people know.Why pay to have it certified if you already know it passes?

 

[cheetahdriver]

one of the requirements of the spec is that you document and limit the changes in the base oil. this substitution limit is one of the things amsoil relates as a reason for not meeting a number of specs.

under the law (MM act) you don't have to use a company's products to maintain a warranty unless they are supplied free of charge (remember BMW's free OC for the warranty period a few back?). you are, however, under obligation to use products which meet the requirements or specifications listed in the manual if they are specifications that more than the manufacturer's products meet. in other words, if they require GM4718M oil, and you blow an engine because you put in non-detergent, or API SA, or RP or some other non-listed oil, you are toast, and rightfully so. it's their warranty, they deny the claim. if you want to file a suit, it's your lawyer, your court cost and your problem to prove that the oil wasn't the cause.

and RP doesn't "meet or exceed the spec". i OWN a copy of the spec, and part of it has to do with keeping proper records and records of changes with GM. if for no other reason than that, THEY DON'T MEET THE SPEC.

saying otherwise doesn't make it so, or the law.

 

[77GrandPrix]

and RP doesn't "meet or exceed the spec". i OWN a copy of the spec, and part of it has to do with keeping proper records and records of changes with GM. if for no other reason than that, THEY DON'T MEET THE SPEC.


I have not seen the actual spec. but, it sounds like you are describing requirements for maintaining GM certification. Meeting the performance specifications of GM4718M and obtaining GM certification are two different things if I'm not mistaken.

 

[cheetahdriver]

part of the spec is to notify GM of any prospective changes in the formulation and retest as required by GM. castrol GTX fell athwart the lesser GM spec because they made a change and lost pumpability. GM didn't hesitate to call them on it, for which i applaud GM.

part of this spec is that GM wants to make sure that the oil the customer buys in the store is of the same grade, spec and quality as the oil the oil company submitted for testing. without this, you are taking on faith that the bottle of oil you buy has any resemblance of the bottle that they tested. of course, the oil company can just say they "meet or exceed".

there are a number of very highly regarded oils that are on GM's list. if your religious affiliation to whatever oil is that important, then by all means, use it. just don't expect the warranty to follow your belief. the spec is the spec, and only the oils on the list meet the spec.

 

[NHHEMI]

cheetadriver;

Dude I worked in a dealership in parts and service and I know how it works. Yes, I was referring to the Magnuson-Moss act. However, you are just flat out wrong in so many of your assumptions and statments it isn't even funny really.

Bottom line if the oil you want to use meets or exceeds the specification reguired by the mfg then that is ALL it has to do. They can NOT require you use a certified oil only that the oil meet the spec in question. That is ALL they can require you do. They can NOT tell you that you MUST use a certified oil. Period and end of story. They( ie; GM directly or a dealer )may try and bully a gullable customer over it but that doesn't make it correct.

Using RP in a Vette for example that requires GM4781M spec oil will not void your warranty even though RP is not on their certified list. GM can ask what oil you used and if it is not on their list they could only void your warranty if THEY can prove it doesn't meet the spec and you used the wrong oil. YOU do not have to prove it does - THEY have to prove it doesn't. You have that mistaken and if you are going to quote the Magnuson-Moss act get it right. I don't have to get a lawyer and go to court to prove RP meets the spec THEY have to go to court and prove it doesn't is how it works. Yes, they can void me and then "I" bring suit but then the burden of proof shifts to them. I do not have it the car mfg does and that is a very significant difference.

To void your warranty for an engine lubrication issue, reason being the mfg claims you used the wrong oil( ie; rating/standard spec's ), the law requires THEY prove the oil caused it. You don't have to prove it didn't. Just because the oil is not on their certified list is not proof. If the oil in question meets or exceeds all the requirements of the standard, even if not certified, they can not meet their burden of proof and you win. Then you sue them for damages and win that as well.

Also, as the other guy just above said you are confusing requirements to maintain certification with the standard specifications and they are not the same thing. GM6094M, GM4781M, and any other standard you wish to use will be based solely on performance test data levels the fluid in question must meet or exceed. The fluid standard you must meet has NOTHING to do with all that other stuff you talk about such as notifying GM about change in base stock and the rest. That is related to maintaing certification once already received. Does not apply to your warranty and the fluid standard the fluid of choice must meet. Not related at all.

This is not like using a non API certified oil, using the wrong weight, or going too long on the OCI which are very specific. non refutable, things. 5W-30 is 5W-30 not 0W-30 or 20W-50. 5000 miles is 5000 miles not 10K, 15K, 20K+. It is API certified or it isn't. Toyota T-IV or Chrysler ATF+4 is not Dexron VI and so on. These oil spec's are different in that there is a specification standard and the oil CAN meet it without actually being certified to do so. There is some gray area in it and the LAW does not require it be certified.

To say only oils on the certified list meet the spec is flat out ridiculous. Yes, the point of the certified list is it is there to help customers find an oil that meets the specification they want used. I agree on that. Your average person wouldn't know how to begin to find out how oils perform under various tests or how to investigate a standard's specifications. The list is there to help those folks but it is NOT a list of the ONLY oils that can be used. The list is not the holy bible of the only oils that can be used as you are making it out to be.

If you only are comfortable using a certified oil that is fine. All the more power to you. The rest of us that know better will use the oil we want as long as it meets or exceeds the spec and our warranties will be fine. Trust me I have personally voided warranties for using the wrong fluids or not performing maintenance on time so I know how it works. Using RP as an example in a GM vehicle calling for either GM6094M or GM4781M is 100% fine even if it does not appear on their little list of certified oils.

Again, use what you want and be happy. If that is only a certified oil so be it. I could care less. Just don't preach to me and tell me I am risking my warranty when you are ill informed on the law pertaining to this.

Regards and no hard feelings. I am out on this one as it is not going anywhere and is just bickering now.