Havoline SL/GF-3 vs SM/GF-4

[xpditor]

My new Acura is now using Mobil 1 10w30 but my research here is causing me to lean towards Dino at the next change. I drive spiritedly, but only 4,000 mis per year. Inspite of computer readings, I will have OCIs of about 4,000 as that is a year's use on the oil.

I like what I see with Havoline 5w30 used oil analysis and I believe a VOA is underway for the 5W-20 SM/GF-4. At Advance Auto Parts, they are having a sale of Havoline by the case for a little over $12 (12 qts). Most of this on the shelf is SL/GF-3 but I have found a few qts. of SM/GF-4.

1)What is the difference in those ratings?
2)Should I hold out for the 5W-20 SM/GF-4?
3)Is there likely to be more moly in the GF-4 for my moly hungry Acura (Honda)?

Thanks.

 

[jthorner]

If you want a high moly 5W-20 conventional oil at a good price then the hot ticket is Exxon Superflo 5W-20. Based on VOAs this *looks* like exactly the same stuff sold as "Honda/Acura 5W-20" at dealer parts counters in the US. ExxonMobil is the announced supplier of motor oil to Honda in the US, so it makes sense.

John

 

[The Critic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jthorner:
If you want a high moly 5W-20 conventional oil at a good price then the hot ticket is Exxon Superflo 5W-20. Based on VOAs this *looks* like exactly the same stuff sold as "Honda/Acura 5W-20" at dealer parts counters in the US. ExxonMobil is the announced supplier of motor oil to Honda in the US, so it makes sense.

John

---

I've always thought that the Exxon Superflo contains about 200-300ppm, where the Chevron/Havoline is in the 300-360ppm range.

The latest VOA of the Havoline 5w30 SM shows 360ppm.

Michael

 

[Drew99GT]

The difference between the GF-4/GF-3 Havoline dinos: probably little to nothing. Havoline has been using at least group II base oil for a while now, so they have technically been ahead of many other oil makers. The main difference is a hair more moly and a hair less zinc and phosphorous. Either one will serve you well, although I'd still use the 10w30 variety in warm/hot temps.

 

[Drew99GT]

Oh man, your In Ft. Lauderdale. 10w30 all the way!!

 

[mikemc]

I don't think you'll go wrong with either one in 10w30. I would say SM since that's all that will be available soon anyway.

[ March 29, 2005, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: mikemc ]

 

[xpditor]

The question I should have asked:

Is the industry moving to SM because it performs better or because of emissions/environmental concerns?

Is the added moly to make up for the lesser AW because of drops in Zinc and Phosphorus? If so, is it enough compensation? Should I expect the same or better AW in the SM or any brand of oil?

Thanks for your patience with a n00b.

 

[bulwnkl]

Well, IMHO, the SM/GF-4 is a better oil. I realize there are doubts among some (many?) here, but I do not think this is a step backwards. I think it is a step in a different, more advanced direction. It is also an environmental change at least to the extent that the new oils will not destroy catylitic converters as quickly, but other additive advances mean that this change is not a step backwards in either durability or longevity.
$0.02

 

[Drew99GT]

SM/GF-4 for dinos is a huge improvment because they require more advanced basestocks and additives to acheive a level of protection equal to GF-3 and lesser specs that can use higher levels of zinc and phos. They truely are better; heck, I think the engine test has more stringent requirments AND it is nw twice as long as the GF-3 test. For sythetics though like Buster and many other people have posted, GF-4 may mean a step backwards. They don't have to worry about using more quality basestocks

, but they now have to use lower additive levels.