LSPI and GF6's

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
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.
You missed the "except" part, or did they mean something other?
It says right in it "except 0w16". The words say NOT 0w16, yet the "approvals and licenses" table they have X's for SN SN+ for 0w16. Hmmmm.
 

Attachments

  • oil1.png
    oil1.png
    55.6 KB · Views: 11
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
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"

You're getting more convoluted as this discussion goes on. You: "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 use of a GF-6B" ...

So it sounds like you believe that only "motors designed specifically for GF-6B" can use an API SP rated 0W-16 oil. If so, that's a misconception and probably what's got you all twisted up in logic. Even a new vehicle where the manufacture says to use API SP could use API SN and not be harmed. Car manufactures always recommend the latest oil rating specs, and when they are in flux like now going from SN to SP people always get all "confused".

Again, the new API SP 0W-16 can be used in any engine that specifies a 0W-16. It's not "backwards compatible" for engines that do not call out a 0W-16 oil. That's why they gave it the GF-6B spec so someone who can't understand oil doesn't put 0W-16 in a vehicle that calls for thicker oil.
 
Last edited:
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
You missed the "except" part, or did they mean something other?
It says right in it "except 0w16". The words say NOT 0w16, yet the "approvals and licenses" table they have X's for SN SN+ for 0w16. Hmmmm.

Not what I said ... I said it was rated SN and SN Plus, which it was. Look at it again. They are just saying 0W-16 didn't meet the ILSAC GF-5 rating (look at Post #35 again). But it was rated SN and SN Plus back in April 2020 before GF-6 hit the streets. It's really not complicated.
 
Last edited:
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
Can't I throw out a "you have 10 fingers and keyboard, you can do your own research" here?

I will grab the links.

When people make claims they typically provide a source to back it up, especially if it's different that what other sources say or other people say, which typically means there is some misconception happening somewhere. I could say the earth is flat without providing any evidence, but who would buy into that?
 
Messages
16,399
Location
...
Toyota has specified 0w16 in certain models in the US for over two years now. In Japan it has been much longer.
 
Messages
4,575
Location
Decatur AL USA
You missed the "except" part, or did they mean something other?
It says right in it "except 0w16". The words say NOT 0w16, yet the "approvals and licenses" table they have X's for SN SN+ for 0w16. Hmmmm.

Email API and ask them why Toyota was allowed to display the Official SN Donut on their 0W-16. You will likely get something like "It was a provisional approval until 0W-16 standards were worked out".
 

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
Not what I said ... I said it was rated SN and SN Plus, which it was. Look at it again. They are just saying 0W-16 didn't meet the ILSAC GF-5 rating (look at Post #35 again). But it was rated SN and SN Plus back in April 2020 before GF-6 hit the streets. It's really not complicated.
So the table itself is not bound to "ILSAC Grades" even though it's in the "ILSAC Grades" section of the doc?
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
So the table itself is not bound to "ILSAC Grades" even though it's in the "ILSAC Grades" section of the doc?

The spec sheet shows the specs ... period. It includes the ILSAC and API ratings, two different animals and simply pointed out that 0W-16 didn't meet the ILSAC GF-5 spec at the time (could be a lot of 0W-16 oils didn't meet the ILSAC spec before GF-6 came out).

The current data sheet on Valvoline Advanced (attached) clearly shows that their 0W-16 meets ILSAC GF-6B and API SP ratings. Before now it meet SN and SN Plus, but not ILSAC GF-5.
 

Attachments

  • US_Val_AdvancedFullSyn_MO_EN(1).pdf
    502.2 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
This is what I mean from the other post you were questioning.

GF-6A/API SP motor oils are required to be backwards compatible, meaning API SP approved motor oils can be used in applications calling for older GF-x/API specified oils.

Example, engine calls for a 0w20 API SN, the new GF-6A 0w20 can be used in place of the 0w20 API SN.


Now let's look at GF-6B (also a SP, but reserved for SAE grade 0w16)
Engine calls for 0w16 API SN (which is an older spec/category than GF-6 and API SP), but wait a sec, GF-6B is not backward compatible with older GF-x/API specified oils ("the new GF-6B standard is currently meant for modern engines that use SAE 0W-16 only. GF-6B standard will not be backward-compatible to any previous categories"). So is using a GF-6B 0w16 to replace a older category 0w16 valid?
 

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
The spec sheet shows the specs ... period. It includes the ILSAC and API ratings, two different animals and simply pointed out that 0W-16 didn't meet the ILSAC GF-5 spec at the time (could be a lot of 0W-16 oils didn't meet the ILSAC spec before GF-6 came out).

The current data sheet on Valvoline Advanced (attached) clearly shows that their 0W-16 meets ILSAC GF-6B and API SP ratings. Before now it meet SN and SN Plus, but not ILSAC GF-5.
TY for showig the diff. The issue is with the way they put docs together. The titles of these docs are "ILSAC Grades", yet they go on to mix in API, Dexos, Ford, etc etc. Showing complinance with GF6A or GF6B is all that is needed in the table, which is in/under a section called "ILSAC Grades", because we alrady know that GF-6's meet/exceed API SP's and that the SP's cover all previous S's, don't really need to see API there, etc. I would prefer those docs to keep Dexos, Ford, API out of the "ILSAC Grades" section, and then perhaps have a overall table in an appendix at the end, etc.
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
This is what I mean from the other post you were questioning.

GF-6A/API SP motor oils are required to be backwards compatible, meaning API SP approved motor oils can be used in applications calling for older GF-x/API specified oils.

Example, engine calls for a 0w20 API SN, the new GF-6A 0w20 can be used in place of the 0w20 API SN.

Now let's look at GF-6B (also a SP, but reserved for SAE grade 0w16)
Engine calls for 0w16 API SN (which is an older spec/category than GF-6 and API SP), but wait a sec, GF-6B is not backward compatible with older GF-x/API specified oils ("the new GF-6B standard is currently meant for modern engines that use SAE 0W-16 only. GF-6B standard will not be backward-compatible to any previous categories"). So is using a GF-6B 0w16 to replace a older category 0w16 valid?

Re: The bold statement. Why wouldn't it be valid to use GF-6B 0W-16 in place of the old 0W-16 SN/SN+ ? What would be so different about 0W-16 GF-6B/API SP formulation that wouldn't allow it to be used in an engine calling for SN or SN Plus 0W-16? They are talking about vehicle back compatibility in terms of oil viscosity, not oil formulation.

As mentioned earlier, they don't want people just seeing a "GF-6" spec on the bottle and then grabbing a 0W-16 thinking it's OK for engines that call for xW-20 or higher. That's why they broke GF-6 into GF-6A (for all but 0W-16) and GF-6B only for 0W-16. They don't want people "blowing-up" their engines by using 0W-16 when it doesn't call for it. :D
 
Last edited:
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
TY for showig the diff. The issue is with the way they put docs together. The titles of these docs are "ILSAC Grades", yet they go on to mix in API, Dexos, Ford, etc etc. Showing complinance with GF6A or GF6B is all that is needed in the table, which is in/under a section called "ILSAC Grades", because we alrady know that GF-6's meet/exceed API SP's and that the SP's cover all previous S's, don't really need to see API there, etc. I would prefer those docs to keep Dexos, Ford, API out of the "ILSAC Grades" section, and then perhaps have a overall table in an appendix at the end, etc.

They simply want to show ALL specs and licensing approvals on one data sheet. Just need to read it carefully, and not between the lines.
 

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
They simply want to show ALL specs and licensing approvals on one data sheet. Just need to read it carefully, and not between the lines.
I see that, but the TITLE of the doc & section is "ILSAC GRADES", so as a reader I find it odd they throw in non-ILSAC stuff, etc. I think you see what I mean, and I do see what you mean, it's just a bit confusing the way they present it. I mean look, a GF-6 supersedes API SN and SN+ anyways, so why bother even listing it.... etc.
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
I see that, but the TITLE of the doc & section is "ILSAC GRADES", so as a reader I find it odd they throw in non-ILSAC stuff, etc. I think you see what I mean, and I do see what you mean, it's just a bit confusing the way they present it.

They clearly showed that it applied to all the oils listed on that spec sheet in terms of the ILSAC rating, except for the 0W-16 and clearly showed that (in the title and in the table). How else are they going to show all that info on one data sheet?

I mean look, a GF-6 supersedes API SN and SN+ anyways, so why bother even listing it.... etc.

Not sure your point, the two data sheets reflected the ratings at the time in Apr 2020 and right now. Things changed, and the sheets clearly show how.
 
Top