*Meeting API SM & GF-4

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
I believe phosphorous is in ZDDP and in order to lower the phosphorous you have to lower the amount of ZDDP also. I don't think these are two separate additives but one being part of the other. Need one of our tribologist to clear this up.


I know, but that statement at best is misleading.

 

[buster]

ZDP is the complete additive. I hear both used at times dependng on who is talking about it.

 

[Johnny]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Johnny
I believe phosphorous is in ZDDP and in order to lower the phosphorous you have to lower the amount of ZDDP also. I don't think these are two separate additives but one being part of the other. Need one of our tribologist to clear this up.


I know, but that statement at best is misleading.


Which statement?

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
Which statement?


Quote:
Unfortunately, the best anti-wear additive, Zinc, harms catalytic converts.


I know ZDDP is the entire molecule, but it's the P, not that Zn that kills the cat. Now I can say that no free metals are really good for a catalyst, but P bonds and makes them inoperable over time.

 

[bruce381]

SM and GF-4 I beleive has a SAP ash cap that is why TBN is down some Plus that fact that SM has a higher amount of AO and fuel are NOW non sulfur means less ash forming additives are used or needed.
bruce

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: bruce381
SM and GF-4 I beleive has a SAP ash cap that is why TBN is down some Plus that fact that SM has a higher amount of AO and fuel are NOW non sulfur means less ash forming additives are used or needed.
bruce


Thanks bruce.

 

[virginoil]

What is SAP ash cap limit for API SM GF-4 certified oils.

1.2% ??

 

[jpr]

Neither has an ash cap per se, but Sulfur is limited to 0.5% by mass (0.7% for 10W30) and phosophorus is to be between 0.06% and 0.08%

The current ACEA specs on the other hand, set the max ash level at 1.3% for A1/B1, 1.5% for A3/B3, and 1.6% for both A3/B4 and A5/B5. Sulfur and Phosphosorus levels are to be reported, but no specific criteria is set.

 

[buster]

I think all of this exemplifies why when comparing oils, it needs to be done on a apples to apples basis.

 

[jpr]

a couple of corollaries to that would be -
- the SAE viscosity grade on its own does not provide sufficient information to make any but the grossest of comparisons
- all oils within a given SAE viscosity grade are not the same

 

[orlzx6r]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: jpr
Has the AFL been formally and officially approved to MB 229.31/229.51 or is this one of those "...formulated to surpass the requirements of..." things?


Yes it is approved. Kind of liked the old formulation better, though.


Pablo,

After owning a a Mercedes, I now get news letters every so often from Mercedes Benz, the latest one had a list of apporoved oils and Amsoil was NOT on that list. Can you confirm Amsoil has been certified by MB and not just marketing babble from Amsoil. BTW I would use Amsoil if I didn't get free oil changes at the dealer.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
the two SM categories have confused many people!

An SM product that is endorsed "Energy Conserving" and is ILSAC GF-4 compliant is restricted to specific viscosities and is roughly similar to the ACEA A1 quality ratings. These lubricants may be unsuitable for some engines

An SM product that is NOT compliant as noted above is roughly equivalent to the ACEA A3 quality rating

The real problem with Oil blenders not seeking either API licences, uses the ACEA quality ratings without "formality" and does not get the engine manufacturer's Approval for their products is that they ride on the back of slick advertising and hyped up marketing. Sadly the buyer is left to believe it all.............

Surely it is better to use correctly endorsed products that have the component makers Approval!