LSPI and GF6's

Messages
4,575
Location
Decatur AL USA
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 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 term of oil viscosity, not oil formulation.

As mentiioned earlier, they don't want people just seeing the "GF-6" spec and then grabbing a 0W-16 thinking it's OK for engines that call for xW-20 or higher.

That is my conjecture but some of their statements are not concise enough. From ILSACs standpoint you were never supposed to use anything other than specified grades so GF-6B is no different than previous certifications in that regard.

My guess is it's no different than cars programmed for 150C Protect Mode and 5W-50 and 120C Protect Mode and 5W-20. Reprogram the "Nanny" and fill it with 0W-16.
 

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
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.
How do you mean "vehicle back compatibility"? The GF6B no-drawkcab statement on API/SAE/Lubrizol/Penzoil sites specifically say
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
I added the emphasis.

And I thought I had some reading last night that says 6B is quite different, thus the engine itself has to accommodate the 6B oil formulation?
 

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
Not sure your point, the two data sheets reflected the ratings at the time (Apr 2020) and right now. Things changed, and the sheets clearly show how.
I mean is, the one right now, shows GF6's and older API SN's, why bother even listing API SN SN+ if GF6 supersedes the SN's. Again, the section is titled "ILSAC Grades", etc.
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
How do you mean "vehicle back compatibility"? The GF6B no-darwkcab statement on API/SAE/Lubrizol/Penzoil sites specifically say I added the emphasis.

And I thought I had some reading last night that says 6B is quite different, thus the engine itself has to accommodate the oil formulation?

The key words in the statement you quoted in the statement: " the new GF-6B standard is currently meant for modern engines that use SAE 0W-16 only. "

It means that only use 0W-16 in engines specifying 0W-16, and in no other engines NOT specifying 0W-16. It's a viscosity back compatibility, not an oil formulation back compatibility issue. You really think if you use GF-6B in place of SN/SN+ that the engine is going to get damaged? Oil manufactueres would be opening themselves up to all kinds of chaos if that was actually true and happened.
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
I mean is, the one right now, shows GF6's and older API SN's, why bother even listing API SN SN+ if GF6 supersedes the SN's. Again, the section is titled "ILSAC Grades", etc.

Because you can still use GF-6B in place of 0W-16 SN/SN+ ... that's why. Forget the title thing, it's not hard to understand what that data sheet says if you actually read it and not read misconceptions in to it.
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
That is my conjecture but some of their statements are not concise enough. From ILSACs standpoint you were never supposed to use anything other than specified grades so GF-6B is no different than previous certifications in that regard.

They are apparently dumbing it down for people that aren't oil spec or viscosity experts so they don't put 0W-16 in a vehicle if they just saw a bottle of oil saying "GF-6". If they see the "GF-6B" spec and know nothing about viscosity (possible), then they will be getting 0W-16 by default.
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
And I thought I had some reading last night that says 6B is quite different, thus the engine itself has to accommodate the 6B oil formulation?

This is where a source link is needed ... not just "I though I read something saying xyz".

If GF-6B/API SP 0W-16 is so different in formulation that it absolutely needs to be used in an engine "designed for it", and it will harm an engine calling out the old SN/SN+ then I want to see the official source of that claim. I say no way that's the case.
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
Read it carefully. The GF-6B is to ensure people use a 0W-16 only in vehicles specifying 0W-16. It's not some super crazy new formulation that's only meant to be used in "specially designed cars" calling out GF-6B and can't be used in older engines calling out 0W-16 in SN/SN+.

The info below is right from API's website. Essentially, ILSAC GF-6B/API SP 0W-16 can be used in any vehicle calling for 0W-16.


"Licensed oils that meet the ILSAC GF-6A standard will be allowed to display the API Certification Mark “Starburst” and may be used where oils meeting GF-5 or earlier gasoline engine oil standards had been recommended. Oils that meet ILSAC GF-6B will be allowed to display a new mark, the API Certification Mark “Shield,” and may be used where SAE 0W-16 oils meeting API SN had been recommended. API is introducing this new “Shield” at the request of automakers to prevent confusion and ensure that 0W-16 oils are used only in applications where they are recommended."



"This is the first time that the industry has introduced a “split” ILSAC specification. The need for this arose from the automakers’ concerns with the trend toward low-viscosity engine oils, in this case SAE 0W-16. This trend warranted not only a separate specification with different fuel economy requirements, but also a new API certification mark to prevent the misapplication of these oils in their engines. "

By "misapplication" they are talking about using the wrong (higher) viscosity because they have fuel mileage targets on these specs. I wonder if CAFE has their hooks in this new GF-6B spec too.
 
Last edited:

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
This is where a source link is needed ... not just "I though I read something saying xyz".
Does this hint of special formulation that would make it not drawkcab compatible to any other category. 6B is said to be it's own category, distinctly different from 6A.
Lubrizol.com
Formulation approaches change at lower viscosities due to the fact that thicker lubricants inherently provide more protective benefits. Developing 0W-16 or lower lubricants that deliver the required wear protection and durability presents oil marketers with a distinct formulation challenge.

Lubrizol has worked ahead of specification development to offer the advanced additive technology for 0W-16 and below, in anticipation of a new formulation paradigm. Lubrizol has demonstrated its commitment with it’s first-to-market PV1016 and PV1116 solutions, applicable to new formulation technologies ahead of the ILSAC GF-6B specification.
I getting more
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
Does this hint of special formulation that would make it not drawkcab compatible to any other category. 6B is said to be it's own category, distinctly different from 6A.

I getting more

Read Post #68 I just posted. API says GF-6B can be used where 0W-16 SN/SN+ was specified. Been saying that for many pages now.

And post the actual link along with any quotes like I did in Post #68, not just the words. I want to see the actual link and read it myself.
 
Last edited:

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
Read Post #68 I just posted. API says GF-6B can be used where 0W-16 SN/SN+ was specified. Been saying that for many pages now.

And post the actual link along with any quotes like I did in Post #68, not just the words. I want to see the actual link and read it myself.

What other categories besides SP / GF6B of 0w16 does 0w16 belong to? And if there are others, would they not be "previous categories"?
ref: https://www.motor.com/2019/05/get-ready-gf-6-motor-oil/
GF-6B standard will not be backward-compatible to any previous categories

ref: https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-t...s-the-latest-spec-in-the-world-of-engine-oil/
The GF-6B category applies only to the new 0W-16 low-viscosity oil that is already being employed by Japanese and European manufacturers to meet the increasingly stringent efficiency goals. But as pointed out, this oil is not backward compatible. We take that to mean the message for enthusiasts is, “stay in your lane, bro,” which just emphasizes that even current 2019 engines are not compatible with these newest lubricants.

ref: https://tech.drivenracingoil.com/new-gf-6-standard/
while GF-6B will not be backward compatible for older applications and will feature an entirely new formulation. In addition to GF-6B’s lower viscosity, a unique balance of additives, viscosity modifiers and base oils will work with new and unique engine designs to maximize fuel economy.

So if the "older" engine called for a 0w16 SN, that would be the min service category, which is an older/previous category before GF-6B and SP.

From all the snazzy mumbo-jumbo across all of the oil sites, it seems that if an engine is to run a GF-6B then the engine was designed specifically for a GF-6B oil and can run nothing less than a GF-6B, thus fortifying the statements that 6B's are not backward compatible. GF-6's are said to all be SP's, but like before, I don't think saying ALL SP's can run in place of all previous S's because the GF-6B itself, although is/meets/surpasses SP, is not drawkcab compatible .
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,575
Location
Decatur AL USA
Like I said I don't like how some of the press releases have been worded.

Several places I have read both the following statements in various places. The first should never have been released in my opinion.

#1
What is significant about GF-6B oils is that the specification will not be backward compatible because of it's unique composition.

#2
What is significant about GF-6B oils is that the specification will not be backward compatible because of the new viscosity grades.
 

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
Read it carefully. The GF-6B is to ensure people use a 0W-16 only in vehicles specifying 0W-16. It's not some super crazy new formulation that's only meant to be used in "specially designed cars" calling out GF-6B and can't be used in older engines calling out 0W-16 in SN/SN+.

The info below is right from API's website. Essentially, ILSAC GF-6B/API SP 0W-16 can be used in any vehicle calling for 0W-16.


"Licensed oils that meet the ILSAC GF-6A standard will be allowed to display the API Certification Mark “Starburst” and may be used where oils meeting GF-5 or earlier gasoline engine oil standards had been recommended. Oils that meet ILSAC GF-6B will be allowed to display a new mark, the API Certification Mark “Shield,” and may be used where SAE 0W-16 oils meeting API SN had been recommended. API is introducing this new “Shield” at the request of automakers to prevent confusion and ensure that 0W-16 oils are used only in applications where they are recommended."
Yeah, it does say/show backward compatibility (using a GF-6B in place of a SN), while a dozen+ other sites say GF-6B has no backward compatibility.
 
Last edited:
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
Yeah, it does say/show backward compatibility (using a GF-6B in place of a SN), while a dozen+ other sites say GF-6B has no backward compatibility.

Who do you think is right ... the API or all those other sites? My bet is on the former.

It's a viscosity back spec issue, NOT an oil formulation issue they are addressing. Even in vehicles specified for GF-6B, a thicker oil in the GF-6A category could be used and the engine isn't going to care. CAFE may care, since they want everyone to use what the CAFE driven car manufacturers specify to get as many CAFE credits as possible. I'd like to know how much involvement CAFE had in the "special" GF-6B spec.
 
Last edited:
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
Like I said I don't like how some of the press releases have been worded.

Several places I have read both the following statements in various places. The first should never have been released in my opinion.

#1
What is significant about GF-6B oils is that the specification will not be backward compatible because of it's unique composition.

#2
What is significant about GF-6B oils is that the specification will not be backward compatible because of the new viscosity grades.

The API links I posted early makes it pretty clear that GF-6B/API SP is backwards compatible with vehicles calling for 0W-16 API SN/SN+.
 
Messages
4,575
Location
Decatur AL USA
Who do you think is right ... the API or all those other sites? My bet is on the former.

Both statements came from the API and were then printed multiple places. My bet is they both mean exactly the same thing (Unique composition meaning lower viscosity) but as I said statement #1 was not concise enough. I suspect statement #1 was formulated when they still thought 0W-16 would debut in the US Market with GF-6B. The delay caused the cars to get to market first along with the lubricants for them.
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
Both statements came from the API and were then printed multiple places. My bet is they both mean exactly the same thing (Unique composition meaning lower viscosity) but as I said statement #1 was not concise enough. I suspect statement #1 was formulated when they still thought 0W-16 would debut in the US Market with GF-6B. The delay caused the cars to get to market first along with the lubricants for them.

The statement below in one of the API links I posted earlier makes it pretty clear. And that was taken today, so I'd expect it to be as current as possible.

It's a viscosity concern, not a formulation concern with respect to back specifying. If it was some crazy formulation thing, then the API would not say what they do in the current statement below.

"Licensed oils that meet the ILSAC GF-6A standard will be allowed to display the API Certification Mark “Starburst” and may be used where oils meeting GF-5 or earlier gasoline engine oil standards had been recommended. Oils that meet ILSAC GF-6B will be allowed to display a new mark, the API Certification Mark “Shield,” and may be used where SAE 0W-16 oils meeting API SN had been recommended. API is introducing this new “Shield” at the request of automakers to prevent confusion and ensure that 0W-16 oils are used only in applications where they are recommended."
 
Last edited:

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
Who do you think is right ... the API or all those other sites? My bet is on the former.

It's a viscosity back spec issue, NOT an oil formulation issue they are addressing. Even in vesicles specified for GF-6B, a thicker oil in the GF-6A category could be used and the engine isn't going to care. CAFE may care, since they want everyone to use what the CAFE driven car manufacturers specify to get as many CAFE credits as possible. I'd like to know how much involvment CAFE had in the "special" GF-6B spec.

CAFE is interesting, because according to some, w/ or w/o CAFE the 16's 12's 8's 4's were still and still are on the horizon.
It's in this link below.

But this is interesting, 0w16's are Group-III stocks, mineral oils??, but he calls it out as a 100% synth? API lists Group I/II/III as mineral oil.
And +2% fuel efficiency just in 4pts! ??
ref: https://www.noln.net/articles/2277-the-skinny-on-ow-16-oil
NOLN: What base oil stock is 0W-16 made from, and does it have any special properties? Miyamoto: It is a 100-percent synthetic oil made from Group III base stock.

NOLN: What type of fuel efficiency increase are you seeing with 0W-16 oil? Miyamoto: So we tested a Honda Fit on a dynamometer. The 0W-16 showed an improvement in fuel economy by 2 percent when compared to 0W-20.
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
CAFE is interesting, because according to some, w/ or w/o CAFE the 16's 12's 8's 4's were still and still are on the horizon.
It's in this link below.

Use of thinner oils in this country has always been driven by CAFE, and always will be. If CAFE went away tomorrow I'd suspect you'd see more thicker oil specs on new vehicles than you see today. Just like vehicles sold in other countries without CAFE using the same exact engines as the ones in the USA.

Guess it's time for a subject change (or a thread lock, lol) since it's pretty clear on what's going on with GF-6B now. 😄
 
Messages
4,575
Location
Decatur AL USA
This statement in one of the API links I posted earlier makes it pretty clear. And that was taken today, so I'd expect it to be as current as possible.

It's a viscosity concern, not a formulation concern with respect to back specifying. If it was some crazy formulation thing, then the API would not say what they do in the current statement below.

"Licensed oils that meet the ILSAC GF-6A standard will be allowed to display the API Certification Mark “Starburst” and may be used where oils meeting GF-5 or earlier gasoline engine oil standards had been recommended. Oils that meet ILSAC GF-6B will be allowed to display a new mark, the API Certification Mark “Shield,” and may be used where SAE 0W-16 oils meeting API SN had been recommended. API is introducing this new “Shield” at the request of automakers to prevent confusion and ensure that 0W-16 oils are used only in applications where they are recommended."

I don't disagree. I just see statement #1 "because of unique compostion" causing issues with Joe Average.

I've never thought it wasn't actually backward compatible (when of the appropriate grade for the vehicle).
 
Top