Infineum's Perspective On GF-5

[pickled]

I must say that I agree with many of the points Infineum makes regarding the new GF-5 specification- especially those related to cost benefit. Their discussions of 10W30 oils with starbursts misleading the consumer and the noted lack of statistical discrimination between 5W and 0W oils in the sequence VID testing are great.

Deleted link

 

[bepperb]

Good link, everyone should be giving this a read.

They [probably the most knowledgeable people on the matter] disagree with the BITOG "vocal minority" in many places, the most obvious is the need for 10w-30 but also zddp levels.

 

[pickled]

If you download the powerpoint presentation you can watch the 10W30 sales peak. Y2K was their hay day now slim is in.

 

[JohnBrowning]

Slim is only in because they include the industry oil sales figures that include service centers like Jiffy Lube and your Dealership. Ifyou go into any Parts Store in Michigan any thing with s 0X or a XW20 has dust on it! The big seller is still 5W30 and 10W30 in Michigan among DIY oil types!

 

[buster]

I like Fran Lockwood's response to fuel economy. GF4 oils have shown to be very robust and the issue of fuel economy is more of a hardware issue than a oil issue. Only small fuel economy gains can be achieved through oil.

 

[addyguy]

I don't agree with the plans to not include 10W-30 in the GF-5 category.

If you go into stores today, up here at least, 5W-30/10W-30 dominate the shelves. I know 20-weights are specified in many vehicles these days, BUT, the shelves do not reflect this. 10W-30 will continue to be a big seller for years to come.

There is absolutely no reason a 10W-30 can't be made to pass economy tests that a 5W-30 can pass. It is thicker at start-up, but at operating temps, where fuel economy tests are conducted, it is the exact same as a 5W-30. They are no 'cold-start fuel economy tests'...they are done at operating temps!

 

[buster]

I think start up does impact fuel economy a bit though.

 

[Ken2]

We need to remember that the ILSAC ratings, GF-5, etc., primarily apply to fuel economy. All other attributes of the oil can be spec'ed by the API Service Category. The upcoming SN will include 10W-30 oils and the rest.

As a consumer, I do not want individual manufacturer's specs for oils. I want all the spec's rolled into the Service Category so every oil of the specified viscosity is right for my modern engine.

bepperb, what's wrong with the present amount of ZDDP in any modern engine? And, no one is considering removing 10W-30 from the shelves, just removing the Energy Conserving label from the bottle for consumer clarity. For the small number of older or modified engines that need more wear protection than GF-4 oils offer, more distribution of CJ-4/SM 10W-30 would be one answer.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
the role that OEM requirements-specifications play is very clear. Many BITOG Members do not like to hear this but but the facts remain as they have done for approaching 70 years (CAT)

This was recently re-enforced to me during my recent visit to Daimler AG in Stuttgart!

It is interesting to note that 10W-30 was probably the first readily available "multi-grade" lubricant - nearly 60 years ago!

 

[chevrofreak]

Originally Posted By: buster
I think start up does impact fuel economy a bit though.


Per my own observations, it's a very significant impact. Going from a 10W-30 to a 5W-20 caused significant fuel economy gains while the engine is cold.

 

[addyguy]

I agree that at cold start-up, a 10W-30 might offer less economy.

But an FE test would be done on a warm engine, not on a cold one.

ILSAC just wants to find a way to 'phase out' 10W-30; and making it so that it isn't fuel-saving, in this era of fuel economy concerns, is a great way to do that.

 

[addyguy]

Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: buster
I think start up does impact fuel economy a bit though.


Per my own observations, it's a very significant impact. Going from a 10W-30 to a 5W-20 caused significant fuel economy gains while the engine is cold.


It has nothing to do with start-up viscosity! a 20-weight is thinner than a 30-weight! Of course you'll get better mileage!

 

[chevrofreak]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: buster
I think start up does impact fuel economy a bit though.


Per my own observations, it's a very significant impact. Going from a 10W-30 to a 5W-20 caused significant fuel economy gains while the engine is cold.


It has nothing to do with start-up viscosity! a 20-weight is thinner than a 30-weight! Of course you'll get better mileage!


It was about an 18% difference. Would you expect that much?

I bet a 0W-30 would have shown a much, much smaller difference.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
But an FE test would be done on a warm engine, not on a cold one.

The current Sequence VIB fuel economy test used for GF-4 does distinguish between 5W-30s and 10W-30s. The difference in specifications is 0.7%


Originally Posted By: addyguy
ILSAC just wants to find a way to 'phase out' 10W-30; and making it so that it isn't fuel-saving, in this era of fuel economy concerns, is a great way to do that.

I agree.

Tom NJ

 

[pbm]

I remember when 5w30 oil was new and considered too thin. I also remember when 10w30 was considered thin and 10w40 was considered ideal.
I still think it's fine to use 10w30 in my 02' Buick 3.1, my 01' Honda 2.3, my 08' Corolla and my 02' Saturn SL in the SUMMER.

 

[CATERHAM]

I think it's a good trend, with the advances in lubrication 10W-30 has been an obsolete or redundant grade for quite a few years now.
The better 5W-30 synthetics contain no VI's and most dino 5W-30's have no problem staying in grade over a mfr specified OCI.

 

[wgtoys]

I don't see any reason to keep moving the requirements bar higher for 10W-30 oils. At least in North America, nearly all of the new gasoline powered cars and trucks being sold call for something other than 10W-30 as the preferred oil. Leave 10W-30 at the SM/GF-4 level.

As far as the fuel economy starburst, who cares? The fuel economy difference between a current starburst 10W-30 and a non-starburst 10W-30 (assuming you can find one!) is by spec on the order of one or two percentage points under laboratory conditions. Anyone looking for a fuel saving xx-30 oil should be looking at 5W-30 or even a 0W-30 oil. Kill the starburst, nobody really cares about it.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

I care about the Starburst. It indicates ILSAC included oils. For the 10w30 I agree it needs to go. Let it fall out of the norm like 10w40.

 

[prax]

I don't think 10w30 sales are going to be affected by the presence of the startburst symbol. Most people using 10w30 probably stick to it because 5w30 seems too thin. They're not going to care if the symbol is there or not. JMO.

Anyway, there was suppose to be a meeting by the end of October. GF-5.com shows no new updates. Anybody know what happened? The spec should've been finalized by now.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
For the 10w30 I agree it needs to go.


Some people want less plastic in their oil and live in places where that 5 vs. 10 means jack squat...