I don't think the 0W-16 SN/SN+ was GF-5. You can and do have oils that are API and not ILSAC.
True ... the Valvoline spec sheet I posted above from April 2020 shows that.
I don't think the 0W-16 SN/SN+ was GF-5. You can and do have oils that are API and not ILSAC.
What category was it in, GF5?
.
What category was it in, GF5?
Which part(s) specifically do you need link(s) for.
You missed the "except" part, or did they mean something other?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.
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"
Can't I throw out a "you have 10 fingers and keyboard, you can do your own research" here?The parts that back up you interpretations in Post #21.
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.
Can't I throw out a "you have 10 fingers and keyboard, you can do your own research" here?
I will grab the links.
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.
So the table itself is not bound to "ILSAC Grades" even though it's in the "ILSAC Grades" section of the doc?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?
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.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.
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?
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.
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.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.