LSPI and GF6's

Some A3/B4 like M1 ESP 5W-30 (3.5+ HTHS) are SN or SN+. So are some HDEO like Delo 400 XSP.

SN does not have an LSPI component. That stated some oils were already formulated with LSPI in mind. M1 claims to have met SN+ requirements since 2010. They also claim their existing formulation met SP GF-6.


GF-6 = SP
GF-5 = SN/SN+

LSPI is only a concern if you have a TGDI. If you have a normally aspirated GDI it's a non-issue.
api.org states "SP's are bkward compat with SN's". That's not exactly true when it's said "GF-6 = SP" because not all GF6's are bkward compat. You cannot use a 6B where a GF-5 SN was used. Surely the SP does cover over SN SN+, but the not-bkward-compat of 6B is the monkey wrench. In other words, 6B is a SP, but you can't use it where some other SN (non GF-6) was used previously.

I forget where, maybe lubrzol site, states the ash and other chemical components (by words, like low this, less that) for 6A's vs 6B's. I thought 6B's had a very different chem composition which was another factor as to why it's not bkward compat, other than 0w16 being the only grade in 6B currently.
 
Last edited:
api.org states "SP's are bkward compat with SN's". That's not exactly true when it's said "GF-6 = SP" because not all GF6's are bkward compat. You cannot use a 6B where a GF-5 SN was used. Surely the SP does cover over SN SN+, but the not-bkward-compat of 6B is the monkey wrench. In other words, 6B is a SP, but you can't use it where some other SN (non GF-6) was used previously.

I forget where, maybe lubrzol site, states the ash and other chemical components (by words, like low this, less that) for 6A's vs 6B's. I thought 6B's had a very different chem composition which was another factor as to why it's not bkward compat, other than 0w16 being the only grade in 6B currently.

I was under the impression it was backwards compatible within Grade.

What are they going to do with the cars that called for 0W-16 SN+ next spring when SN+ goes away?

After reading it seems to imply they can be used in cars that call for 0W-16 SN+ (Toyota and Honda) so it does appear to be backwards compatible within grade.

I guess the wording of API gives you extra cover if you prefer 0W-20 (API said GF-6B wasn't backwards compatible with SN+ requirements).
 
Last edited:
Not all jugs labeled "0w16" are GF6-B's, at least not by the words or symbols on the jug.

Could still be old jugs on the shelves. In your case, it doesn't matter because your vehicles calls out plain old SN.
 
Could still be old jugs on the shelves. In your case, it doesn't matter because your vehicles calls out plain old SN.
But how could a 0w16 not be SP if 0w16's can only be in GF6-B?

A 0w16 SN is kinda oxymoron in API/SAE/Lubrizol world, no?
 
I was under the impression it was backwards compatible within Grade.

What are they going to do with the cars that called for 0W-16 SN+ next spring when SN+ goes away?

After reading it seems to imply they can be used in cars that call for 0W-16 SN+ (Toyota and Honda) so it does appear to be backwards compatible within grade.

I guess the wording of API gives you extra cover if you prefer 0W-20 (API said GF-6B wasn't backwards compatible with SN+ requirements).
A 0w16 doesnt officially exist outside of GF6-B, right? So what would it be backward compat with?
I thought any SP meets or exceeds all SN SN+ ?

GF-6B will only be for SAE 0W-16 and will not be backward compatible.
SP is the next generation API service category and is applicable across viscosity grades. API SP replaces API SN/SN PLUS and is backward compatible to all previous “S” service category oils.
ref:Chevron

All GF-6's are SP
 
A 0w16 doesnt officially exist outside of GF6-B, right? So what would it be backward compat with?
I thought any SP meets or exceeds all SN SN+ ?



All GF-6's are SP

So what are bottles marked SN+ GF-6?
They do exist.

I assume the Toyota and Honda SN+ 0W-16.
 
api.org states "SP's are bkward compat with SN's". That's not exactly true when it's said "GF-6 = SP" because not all GF6's are bkward compat. You cannot use a 6B where a GF-5 SN was used. Surely the SP does cover over SN SN+, but the not-bkward-compat of 6B is the monkey wrench. In other words, 6B is a SP, but you can't use it where some other SN (non GF-6) was used previously.

You got a link that specifically says that, or is that just your interpretation?

According to the Pennzoil website, what they are saying is GF-6B is not backwards compatible for older engines that don't specify a 0W-16. It can be used in any engine that specifies a 0W-16 ... it would be totally nonsensical if it couldn't be used in place of older 0W-16 API ratings.



Why is a GF-6B standard necessary?
ILSAC has always tried to make its standards “evergreen,” which means they are backward-compatible. Thus, when a new standard is activated, the previous standard becomes obsolete because the latest standard meets the needs of both new and prior engine technologies. However, the new 0W-16 viscosity grade has not been specified for most older engines, as most older engines are not equipped to operate with a lubricant at such a low viscosity.

For this reason, ILSAC determined the need for an ILSAC GF-6A standard, which is backward-compatible, and an ILSAC GF-6B standard, which is ONLY used for SAE 0W-16.
Oils meeting the GF-6B standard will NOT be backward-compatible unless specified by an OEM, and this distinction will be noted clearly on eligible Pennzoil Platinum motor oil labels.
 
This guy likes to argue just for the sake of arguing. Prior to May 1 2020 GF-6B didn’t exist, 0W-16 did.
0w16 was reserved for GF6B, its one of may in GF6, its bound to GF6B.
So, prior to and the 0w16 was out there? To what category? 0w16 is not even in GF-6A, so whet would it be bkward compat with? Is sae0w16 listed in the GF5 category?
 
A clarification. Toyota is 0W-16 SN with official API Donut.

Honda and Toyota already had 0W-16 in the cars and available at the service department prior to SP and GF-6B.
 
So what are bottles marked SN+ GF-6?
They do exist.

I assume the Toyota and Honda SN+ 0W-16.
Wild guess, but any 0w16 would (should) be SP, and SP supersedes SN SN+ (all previous S's to be accurate)
But as I noted not all 0w16's out there are SP, how can that be?
 
But how could a 0w16 not be SP if 0w16's can only be in GF6-B?

A 0w16 SN is kinda oxymoron in API/SAE/Lubrizol world, no?

Not what I was saying. A 0W-16 SN is not an "oxymoron" because that was the API rating before GF-6 came out. You have to look at the ratings when it was GF-5, and now when it's GF-6. Did you even read the Pennzoil link (which as been posted at least twice in this thread). I sure hope you don't have this same logic when playing with nuclear bombs ... this isn't rocket science, lol. :ROFLMAO:
 
Not what I was saying. A 0W-16 SN is not an "oxymoron" because that was the API rating before GF-6 came out. You have to look at the ratings when it was GF-5, and now when it's GF-6. I sure hope you don't have this same logic when playing with nuclear bombs, lol. :ROFLMAO:
A 0w16 is not a SN oil, it's a SP oil, and SP covers all previous S's.
Toyota's that call for 0w16 SN are in fact not "GF6B" engines at all, otherwise the idiot label would say "0w16 SP" which would then force sole usef of a GF-6B, but a non-6B 0w20 is also allowed, which tells us the LSPI portion of the oil does not matter for those engines spec'd "0w16 SN"
 
Last edited:
Wild guess, but any 0w16 would (should) be SP, and SP supersedes SN SN+ (all previous S's to be accurate)
But as I noted not all 0w16's out there are SP, how can that be?

I don't think the 0W-16 SN/SN+ was GF-5. You can and do have oils that are API and not ILSAC. Mobil 1 ESP 5W-30 is an example. It's can't make ILSAC requirements because it is 3.5 HTHS which is required to meet the ACEA and European Automakers approvals.
 
Here was Valvoline's Advanced full synthetic spec sheet back in April 2020. Note the API ratings on the 0W-16 ... rated API SN and SN Plus.
 

Attachments

  • US_Val_AdvancedFullSyn_MO_EN.pdf
    585.9 KB · Views: 21
Back
Top