LSPI and GF6's

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
I've never thought it wasn't actually backward compatible (when of the appropriate grade for the vehicle).
Then why the need for a "special" 6B category just for 0w16, why could it not fit into 6A?
or,
Why not 6A carry all the test specs of 6B and then just have 6A.

6B test specs are all of 6A's with some required improvements, etc, so why not just jam all the better stuff of 6B down onto 6A?
 
Messages
728
Location
EU
Empire, just separate ILSAC from (SM, SN, SN+, SP) API to look at "backwards compatibility" at all.

Have a look at the heavy duty engine oils where they didn't go with an ...A and a ...B but with two less similar notations:

CK-4, the one backwards compatible to CJ-4, CI-4, CH-4....
and
FA-4, the non backwards compatible one of lowered viscosities

FA-4 in the future might become FB-4, FC-4... for this modern branch. GF-6A and GF-6B are nothing but such a split with a low viscosity branch not backwards compatible regarding its own roots.
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
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).

"Unique composition" probably means loaded with extra AF/AW additives to help reduce wear when the MOFT goes to zero. :sneaky: :D
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
Then why the need for a "special" 6B category just for 0w16, why could it not fit into 6A?
or,
Why not 6A carry all the test specs of 6B and then just have 6A.

It's been explained many times in articles and in this thread - it stems on the viscosity compatibility not the formulation, yet not grasped ... same ending in every thread, lol. 😄
 
Messages
728
Location
EU
...B is the lower viscosity, therefore not compatible.
...A is the compatible one, therefore no lower viscosity.

As Siri, Cortana and Alexa weren't enough, there's generally little hope for you, that Siri, Cortana, Alexa and BITOG will ever suffice. You'd really have to start reading into things instead of writing on and on. Neither Siri and Cortana, nor Alexa and BITOG can treat you as you'd need. YOU will have to do that! Treat yourself to some pursuit of things. Then, some day, you will have questions.
 
Last edited:
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
6B test specs are all of 6A's with some required improvements, etc, so why not just jam all the better stuff of 6B down onto 6A?

It's a viscosity spec split ... said so in many of the links provided. 0W-16 even gets it's own "API Shield" symbol on the bottle so oil dummies chose the right viscosity for their 0W-16 cars, and CAFE and the car manufacturer is really happy about it.

They could still be rouge and chose a GF-6A higher viscosity if they wanted to knowing it will give better HTHS and MOFT. ;)
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
What is not backwards compatible?

For the 10th time ... not backwards compatible for vehicles specifying thicker oil than 0W-16. Apparently, they don't like people possible risking engine damage if using 0W-16 in an engine that doesn't call for it, and then the oil manufacturer being on the hook for it.
 

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
For the 10th time ... not backwards compatible for vehicles specifying thicker oil than 0W-16. Apperently, they don't like risking people possible engine damage is using 0W-16 in an engine that doesn't call for it.
How's that different than 6A? Didn't Gene mention the back compat was a like-for-like in oil grade?

If the oil cap label says 10w30 SP and I put in a 5w30 GF-6A, that's ok?
Isnt the back compat more like "5w30 SN" so it's ok to use a "5w30 GF-6A / SP" ?
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
How's that different than 6A? Didn't Gene mention the back compat was a like-for-like in oil grade?

If the oil cap label says 10w30 SP and I put in a 5w30 GF-6A, that's ok?
Isnt the back compat more like "5w30 SN" so it's ok to use a "5w30 GF-6A / SP" ?

Facepalm ... LoL. We really need that emoji. :unsure: Turning into obtuse trolling now it seems.
 

EMPIRE

Thread starter
Messages
402
Location
AZ
Hmmm, seems to say NOT backwards compat, at all.
Using a 0w16 GF6B in place of a 0w16 SN would be a back compat swap, which appears to be not allowed.

ref:https://360.lubrizol.com/2014/Low V...dditive Technology to Address Wear Challenges

GF-6B, on the other hand, forgoes the requirement to be backwards compatible with GF-5 applications and opens the door for the development of ultra-low viscosity lubricants (i.e., SAE 16) that will push the industry into areas of formulation that have never before been encountered. These lubricants will produce significant fuel economy benefits for many engine applications, but because of their low viscosity grade, there is the potential for wear or other durability related issues.
 
Messages
728
Location
EU
Yours is 0W-16 ready. You can use them all, SN+ and SP, GF6-A and GF-6B. Perhaps mix them all in to not risk too much in case I was lying.
 
Messages
26,403
Location
PNW
Hmmm, seems to say NOT backwards compat, at all.
Using a 0w16 GF6B in place of a 0w16 SN would be a back compat swap, which appears to be not allowed.

No, don't believe the clearly stated official API information ... only other sources that don't seems to agree with what the API says because of heavy reading between the lines. Common theme it seems.
 
Messages
13,514
Location
Kendall, FL
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.

Mobil1 was a go-to in combating LSPI because their oils always used a lower Calcium, higher Magnesium content, and more importantly, no Sodium.
 
Top