quote:
Does a group III with a lesser additive package (Mobil Drive Clean?) provide any better protection than a group II/II+ with a higher level of additives such as moly, boron etc (Chevron/Havoline)? Or does the higher levels of additives in the group II/II+ give that oil any advantage over the group III?
Some very good questions that highlight the different formulation paths to passing the GF-4 tests. I think after another 6 months & accumulations of SM/GF-4 dino UOA's, we will have a better picture.
Clearly some changes in additive packages for SM/GF-4, and moly is a good example.
The new Maxlife SM/GF-4 oil lists 300 ppm moly and per all indications is still a Grp 1+/PAO blend. The moly in this case, more than likely, is providing additive help to pass the oxidation requirements of the Sequence IIIG test.
From the recent GF-4, Mobil DC 5W-30 UOA, we see only 23 ppm of moly, quite a drop from the 65-80 level of the of previous DC UOA's.
To me, this is a good example of the better oxidation performance of a Grp III base oil and the declining role of moly as an anti-oxidant, in the add pack, for Grp III oil formulations.
So, bottom line is that the SM/GF-4 requirements have generated some new add pack & base oil combinations and it will take time to sort it all out.