Any idea when the D1G3 add pack will be ready? Or does the current PCMO formula already exceed those requirements?
High Performance Lubricants PCMO Series
- Thread starter High Performance Lubricants
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hpl
currently D1G2. We have some chemistry to use up before switching.
D
Deleted member 89374
Given the high quality of your products and the excellent materials you use to blend them, would most people see any real world benefit from using a HPL product blended with D1G3 versus D1G2 chemistry?
I do not believe so.
What are the changes going to be?
There is a spider chart from lubrizol that demonstrates the difference from D1G2 to D1G3.
D
Deleted member 89374
Dexos 1 Gen 3 looks more like a sidestep than a step forward. Yes, the D1G3 is the one that shows a regression in the wear control department. This isn't like waiting to buy a new piece of computer hardware that's going to be incrementally better. That's why I asked earlier if there will be any benefit for the average person who uses a D1G3 oil versus D1G2. Apparently not. Luckily HPL puts considerable effort in formulating their lubricants, so I'm confident that whether anyone's buying D1G2 or D1G3 from HPL, they will get a very good product.
There have been a few threads about D1G3 already.
Not exactly true.
"
NOTE: the relative performance of the dexos® 1 Gen 3 wear specification is ranked slightly lower than dexos® 1 Gen 2 since GM removed an engine test (RNT) and replaced it with a bench test (MTM). Generally, an engine test is a better method of evaluating performance. The specification does still utilize the Sequence IVB wear test, which is also part of the API and ILSAC specifications. The sludge-handling performance comparison is a similar situation where GM removed a sludge handling engine test (M271 EVO) and replaced it with the Sequence VH (API/ILSAC), a final formulation test with more stringent limits than those of ILSAC GF-6.
The specification ensures that all dexos® 1 Gen 3 oils will still be very strong on wear protection and sludge handling and reflects the emphasis that has been put on cleanliness, fuel economy and LSPI protection for GM vehicles."
GM dexos1
360.lubrizol.com
Not starting an argument with you here (maybe GM!), but first stating that they removed an engine test, and then stating that an engine test is a better method, doesn't that essentially say they've made the test easier on the newer oil? Also, saying d1G3 "will still be very strong on wear protection" is NOT the same thing as saying "provides better wear protection than d1G2"...Not exactly true.
"
NOTE: the relative performance of the dexos® 1 Gen 3 wear specification is ranked slightly lower than dexos® 1 Gen 2 since GM removed an engine test (RNT) and replaced it with a bench test (MTM). Generally, an engine test is a better method of evaluating performance. The specification does still utilize the Sequence IVB wear test, which is also part of the API and ILSAC specifications. The sludge-handling performance comparison is a similar situation where GM removed a sludge handling engine test (M271 EVO) and replaced it with the Sequence VH (API/ILSAC), a final formulation test with more stringent limits than those of ILSAC GF-6.
The specification ensures that all dexos® 1 Gen 3 oils will still be very strong on wear protection and sludge handling and reflects the emphasis that has been put on cleanliness, fuel economy and LSPI protection for GM vehicles."
GM dexos1
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
I recall that there were many Proof of Performance tests done via big Taxi services - between them being replaced by other means (Uber etc) and the pandemic - that’s a ship taking on water …Not exactly true.
"
NOTE: the relative performance of the dexos® 1 Gen 3 wear specification is ranked slightly lower than dexos® 1 Gen 2 since GM removed an engine test (RNT) and replaced it with a bench test (MTM). Generally, an engine test is a better method of evaluating performance. The specification does still utilize the Sequence IVB wear test, which is also part of the API and ILSAC specifications. The sludge-handling performance comparison is a similar situation where GM removed a sludge handling engine test (M271 EVO) and replaced it with the Sequence VH (API/ILSAC), a final formulation test with more stringent limits than those of ILSAC GF-6.
The specification ensures that all dexos® 1 Gen 3 oils will still be very strong on wear protection and sludge handling and reflects the emphasis that has been put on cleanliness, fuel economy and LSPI protection for GM vehicles."
GM dexos1
if one had a few bucks on hand …
Marine Engine Performance Testing | NTRC | ExxonMobil Marine
Discover how ExxonMobil tests engines in demanding environments to help improve engine performance and engine protection.
www.exxonmobil.com
D
Deleted member 89374
@The Critic, @SubieRubyRoo and @4WD I don't think we should derail this thread and turn it into a D1G2 vs D1G3 discussion because in the context of HPL it doesn't mean much, if anything. The reason why we buy HPL lubricants is because we want a better product with augmented properties. There already is ample evidence that HPL delivers.
If we'd make the same comparison within a budget product line produced by any of the large manufacturers, then sure, it would matter. D1G3, if anything, gave an opportunity to some of the big names to reformulate their product lines. Mobil 1 for example overhauled their entire product line when they made the switch to D1G3. Internally they probably saved some money, moved around some materials they used, but in the end, their products still perform well. Now, if you go to the lower tier lubricants, well, you'll get what you pay for. But as long as those lubes are API and Dexos licensed, you will get, at the very least, minimum spec performance.
However, in the context of HPL, it doesn't matter as they alway go to great lengths to augment the properties of the additive package they use along with using top tier materials. Simply put, for them price of materials is not a concern as they want to offer the best product they can possibly make. Consequently, D1G2 vs. D1G3 doesn't matter in this context.
That's just my two cents. Anyone who wants to continue debating this, be my guest.
I still have HPL Premium Plus PCMO lube blended with D1G2 and I'm going to use it with confidence. I also have a nice stash of Mobil 1 EP 0W-20, 5W-20, and 5W-30, all API SP Dexos D1G2 - this comes in handy in a pinch. And I also have plenty of Mobil 1 FS 0W-40 API SN (there is another discussion about this being reformulated to API SP), along with a few gallons of AMSOIL, Castrol, and Red Line that was blended with God knows what additive package. All of these lubricants are high quality and I'm going to use them up over time. There is zero reason for me to lose any sleep over D1G2 vs D1G3 or, in the case of M1 0W-40 - stress out when the API SP variant might become available.
If we'd make the same comparison within a budget product line produced by any of the large manufacturers, then sure, it would matter. D1G3, if anything, gave an opportunity to some of the big names to reformulate their product lines. Mobil 1 for example overhauled their entire product line when they made the switch to D1G3. Internally they probably saved some money, moved around some materials they used, but in the end, their products still perform well. Now, if you go to the lower tier lubricants, well, you'll get what you pay for. But as long as those lubes are API and Dexos licensed, you will get, at the very least, minimum spec performance.
However, in the context of HPL, it doesn't matter as they alway go to great lengths to augment the properties of the additive package they use along with using top tier materials. Simply put, for them price of materials is not a concern as they want to offer the best product they can possibly make. Consequently, D1G2 vs. D1G3 doesn't matter in this context.
That's just my two cents. Anyone who wants to continue debating this, be my guest.
I still have HPL Premium Plus PCMO lube blended with D1G2 and I'm going to use it with confidence. I also have a nice stash of Mobil 1 EP 0W-20, 5W-20, and 5W-30, all API SP Dexos D1G2 - this comes in handy in a pinch. And I also have plenty of Mobil 1 FS 0W-40 API SN (there is another discussion about this being reformulated to API SP), along with a few gallons of AMSOIL, Castrol, and Red Line that was blended with God knows what additive package. All of these lubricants are high quality and I'm going to use them up over time. There is zero reason for me to lose any sleep over D1G2 vs D1G3 or, in the case of M1 0W-40 - stress out when the API SP variant might become available.
We agree... I know HPL doesn't bother with dexos licensing because their oils are far superior anyways, but since they mentioned it in their literature, was more asking if this was another one of those "Mobil already met API SP standards 10 years ago when everyone else was on API SL" kinda thing. I don't have anything that requires dexos, but I do have a couple vehicles that are running HPL. This is more just trying to understand the changes that are occurring overall in lubricants and trying to be smarter than the average bear
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
I gave an example of what you do when “proof of performance testing” is not practical in response to that -vs- bench testing …
(note who Re’d to)
Some OEM’s still require PoP … This just feels like a revisit of the old Amsoil SS debates …
So you can have your cake and eat it too.Not exactly true.
"
NOTE: the relative performance of the dexos® 1 Gen 3 wear specification is ranked slightly lower than dexos® 1 Gen 2 since GM removed an engine test (RNT) and replaced it with a bench test (MTM). Generally, an engine test is a better method of evaluating performance. The specification does still utilize the Sequence IVB wear test, which is also part of the API and ILSAC specifications. The sludge-handling performance comparison is a similar situation where GM removed a sludge handling engine test (M271 EVO) and replaced it with the Sequence VH (API/ILSAC), a final formulation test with more stringent limits than those of ILSAC GF-6.
The specification ensures that all dexos® 1 Gen 3 oils will still be very strong on wear protection and sludge handling and reflects the emphasis that has been put on cleanliness, fuel economy and LSPI protection for GM vehicles."
GM dexos1
Efficiency + wear protection/cleanliness.
I did not know that.
D
Deleted member 89374
I'm not sure if you understand how Dexos licensing works. A while ago someone around here made the observation that GM is better at writing oil specifications than building cars. It's funny because it's true. GM charges for the use of their Dexos logo for every product line a blender sells, and every single gallon of oil in that product line. Unless a blender needs the Dexos trademark as a marketing to help them sell their product, there is no reason to pay for it. Given that HPL's niche is high performance applications and people who like to take extremely good care of their vehicles, I doubt they need to spend money on Dexos licensing. To be clear, Dexos is not an approval, it is a license that you continuously pay for as long as you use GM's trademark.We agree... I know HPL doesn't bother with dexos licensing because their oils are far superior anyways, but since they mentioned it in their literature, was more asking if this was another one of those "Mobil already met API SP standards 10 years ago when everyone else was on API SL" kinda thing. I don't have anything that requires dexos, but I do have a couple vehicles that are running HPL. This is more just trying to understand the changes that are occurring overall in lubricants and trying to be smarter than the average bear
HPL is one of the most transparent blenders I have ever talked to. They don't use marketing lingo or obfuscation in any of their communication. If there is something they can't talk about or is a trade secret they say so point blank. Any other blender making high performance lubricants would have said that their product "meets and exceeds Dexos 1 Gen 3 specifications". I'm confident HPL's does as well, they just choose to be transparent about what they put in their lubricants. I take that any day over fancy verbiage.
HPL was straightforward and gave you an honest answer about the type of additive package their incorporating in their blend, but that's not what you're getting in the final product. Since Dexos licensing is a series of tests, I'm sure that the HPL PCMO product lines would have no problem passing the D1G3 tests with ease. To give you a counter example, Castrol uses an MB 229.71 additive package for their EP product line. They went from D1G2 to D1G3 with the same formulation in their EP line because MB 229.71 passes the D1G3 tests in their formulation with ease. AMSOIL lists D1G3 compatibility as well in theory SS literature, yet they did not announce any formulation changes as they usually do. That's because their current formulations will pass the D1G3 requirements.
Bellow are Dexos 1 Gen 3 tests in a nutshell. As you can tell, the final product is being tested, not just the additive package.
And more marketing material. Good luck drawing an objective conclusion from the "Relative Performance Comparison" below. As a layman, to me it looks like they came out with Gen 3 just for the sake of coming out with something "new".
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
How much are they charging ? Can’t be much since Dexos lubes are not expensive …
Seems Dexron is more universally accepted … but I got full synthetic Dex VI for $4.64/quart when my ZF options ran from $21 to $40/quart …
D
Deleted member 89374
All the Dexos licensing cost info that I have is outdated from over a decade ago when it was discussed around the Interwebs. If you google it you will not find anything new or relevant. This subject has been previously debated on this forum as well.
ATF is big business. So big that the large manufacturers try not to step on each other's toes when it comes to what they produce. ATF is another rabbit hole that could generate entire pages of discussions and I don't want to further derail this thread.
As far as I'm concerned, I service three ZF 8-speed transmissions. For the two new additions amongst those three I'm going with HPL Gree CC. Not only do I not want to spend money on ZF Lifeguard (Mopar 8 & 9 speed in my case), but I HPL ATF Green CC is a better product than Lifeguard 8. The RAM 1500 has AMSOIL ATL in the transmission right now, but I will switch it to HPL as well next time I service it.
Yes, I get that dexos is really just a royalty check. I know HPL will exceed all "relative" performance comparisons of any dexos formulation.
Oh, please. Those specs have been posted in this thread and others. Go to their distribution site.
Here are a couple.
Similar threads
- Sticky
