Mobil1 5w-30 meet dexos1- Combined Dexos Thread

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
The folks on this site have lost their minds all over this spec. Yes, it is a spec just as GM6094, GM4718M, and others are just specs. If one was actually approved for all these specs, a licensing fee was paid. Heck, if an oil is actually API-SAE-ILSAC approved with all the correct labeling on the bottle, there are licensing fees paid for that also.

I am more concerned with what brand of barbeque sauce my wife is getting ready to buy at the grocery store than I am some stupid oil spec that does not effect any car I own.

I got your point, and have to somewhat respectfully disagree though. In some cases you may be right and some people may just be wanting a good argument (think of Monty Python Argument Clinic) but some of us are curious in case we run across this with family/friends/acquaintances/ etc.

Personally I don't see a new GM in my future, but I give them credit for making it easier for my old feeble brain. I can remember DEXOS 1 easier than GM XXXX something or another!

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: kr_bitog
Well, GM can not make money selling car, now they are selling oil.

"Although GM has not officially settled on an amount, they are moving forward with plans to charge a licensing fee and royalty on all Dexos engine oil sold. The original estimate had a licensing fee of $1,000.00 per year for each oil marketer, with an approved Dexos product, and a royalty fee of $0.32 on every gallon sold, worldwide."
http://www.nalube.com/e-newsletter/archive/2009/july.html

Another reason to just say no to GM...

I'm sure they changed all their motors to REQUIRE the Dexos oil. Normal SM oils will cause serious problems with their "special" motors...

How can they go from OLM that run great with ANY oil to this???

Amazing....

Bill,

Maybe you can provide a link where it shows GM saying that SM oils will cause "serious problems with their special motors"????

I havent seen anything like that....All I'm seeing is common sense that they want to expand OCI's through confident use of the OLM. Their DI engines require lower Noack volatility, so they are requiring that.


Again, please provide a link where GM even hints at current oils causing serious problems.

Oh and the data you quoted is outdated and has nothing to do with reality as it exists today. A link was provided in the oil cap thread, and this thread is based on that link that supersedes the information regarding fees you quoted and the other guy linked to. Did you two read the link in the first post of this thread? Sorry not that link, this link....

http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001713657.cfm?x=bgCRnjw,bh5DL1wP,w

This was osted in the oil cap thread, the one that got shut down, because people were talking about things like....oh like GM and how they will never buy one and why....among other things. Why make your own first post in this thread along the same lines?

"Another reason to just say no to GM"....Sounds just like more backhanded bashing that can only invite comment, why go there?


Go look at the DATE of the post I made. NOTICE its not today, or yesterday, or last month or even the month before.

Let's quote something current not something almost 6 months old before we get into the "drama".

Or do we just LOOK for something to raise heck about?

 

[virginoil]

Has Dexos 1 for petrol engines been release yet by GM yet?

If not, isthere any inside news when this will be released in the US and then world wide?

 

[shpankey]

Originally Posted By: Garak

If the engine were DI, used E85, or had a turbocharger (not in GM's current bag of tricks in North America except for diesel, as far as I know)

Great post all around Garak, as usual. Just wanted to point out they do have this. The Cobalt SS is Direct Injection Turbo and most all our gasoline here in the US has ethanol mixed in (though you can find a few stations here and there with %100 gas).

Oh wait, you said E85. Nevermind, I'm stupid. lol. That is that other fuel. I forgot.

Anyhow, on topic. I guess I'm one of the few who loves the whole Dexos thing. I like the idea of a more stringent spec for oil's to adhere to. It's just another way as a consumer I can see an oil is up to snuff and can handle more extremes. As a person with a D.I. Turbo high performance VVT car that eats oils for breakfast, I love it. Bring Dexos on. I think GM has hit a home run with their amazing OLM and I think Dexos makes it even better. The two together will assure long life car's and help the environment by stopping so much ridiculous waste of oil (3k mi OCI's forever gone finally!). I think their are people w/ a vested interest to see such things not happen. Quick Lube shops, mechanic shops, heck even dealerships who rake in tons of money of oil changes that happen far far too often.

The GM OLM is amazing technology. I wish my car had something like that and I think Dexos just further's this even more, in essence going hand in hand. With Dexos out, in the future, car's spec'd for Dexos oil only can have adjustments made to their OLM's that can even further out the mileage on oil changes, thereby helping the environment even more.

Lastly, I think GM's recent turnaround is amazing. They went from making junk cars to truly impressing me. Big time. They have some of the best bang for your buck performance cars out there. I love their Cobalt SS Turbo's. Set a world record on the Nurburgring and you can even order Stage 1 and 2 upgrades from the factory. Same for their Camaro's, which is another GM home run imo. Awesome cars. Their GMC truck are awesome again. And their ecotech engines are one of the most impressively durable and long lasting engines made. Easy on oil and last forever.

Anyhow, I'm not a GM fan or anything. I'm more of a Ford/Mazda guy myself. But all this GM bashing is sickening. And recently I've read some posts on here talking about American's that made me sick, ie: "must have been an American" and "typical Americans". I hate generalizing an entire country based on a few people they've ran into. Sickening. Not saying anyone in this thread is doing it, but just saying I was surprised to see it openly posted here on bitog and definitely gave me a different impression of what was allowed on here.

 

[shpankey]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
The two different GM specs were meant for different things. The GM4718M is a high temp spec, where I believe the GM6094 has something to do with cold temps. The only oils I've ever seen the 4718M spec on were 5w30 synthetics and not all of them had it. I know it took Valvoline for ever to have this spec on their synthetic oil.

Actually, I think the GM 4718M spec dealt with hot and then if it passed that, they would freeze it. I think it was like 302 degrees boiled and after that, if the oil passed, they froze it to -22 degrees F and the oil had to maintain a certain pour-ability. If I'm wrong on this, I apologize in advance. But I think that's what the Quaker State Ultimate Durability website said on the matter.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Garak


Personally, I find it odd that when they have a relationship with ExxonMobil, who produces a bajillion varieties of oil which collectively cover every conceivable past and current specification, that they couldn't find a Mobil variety (with some corresponding ACEA spec) that would meet their needs.


This statement is similar to what I think. Only I see it as the whole Dexos thing as a money maker for GM. GM is not in such great financial shape, lied in advertisments about paying their loan off. There is a thread here from the other day proving that. So IMO it is all about money. Going back to threads that have been locked, I don't blame, Castrol, Amsoil, RL or any other company that doesn't pay the Vig for the cert. IMO it is a rip off.

BTW nicely written Garak, hope we can agree to disagree!

 

[pbm]

I agree that this is more about $$$ for GM than about 'oil standards'. At 37 cents a gallon licensing fee GM would make $$$.
I feel the oil companies should ignore 'Dexos' and put the 37 cents per gallon into R&D (instead of GM's pocket).
I swore off GM when they went bankrupt and came back to life 'leaner and meaner'and this whole Dexos nonsense only reinforces my decision.

 

[rclint]

I was quoted about spec oil, and manufacture oil etc, however I don't want to go back to clarify my points. When I spoke of general public etc

Here we go, you or some person purchases a GM car/engine whatever, so you have a few free services, and you bring in your vehicle to be serviced which will be an oil change, so the dealer takes the car back he also makes sure you understand that dexos 1 oil be used in your engine, he shows you the oil cap, reminds you of the owners manual, and now he has a quart of dexos 1 oil on the front of the bottle it says GM Dexos 1 oil. This is my opinion on what will happen, I may be wrong, then the customer that done all of this goes to walmart looking for dexos 1, why else would there be a name change on the engine oil fill cap ? If this is just a spec change, nothing more why would a name change be needed on the oil fill cap, however what adds even more confusion is the fact that there was no need to do anything about the oil caps with previous M1 caps that were just being delivered to the lots... Maybe my wee brain is confused to easy, or I'm overly looking for a reason not to like the dexos spec ( spec only).

IF GM is only combining specs into one nice little dexos spec I could live with that if no fees were charged for labeling, I could understand the fees paid to take the test or whatever the same as any other GM spec

 

[bullwinkle]

I think the bashing results from the fact that GM is basically owned by "us", the American taxpayer-and anybody who buys an '11 GM vehicle-is going to have to (probably?) pay more for oil, and oil changes, due to the Dexos specs. I am going to talk to some of the Valvoline corp. oil change guys I deal with, and see what their policy will be if there is a problem w/a GM vehicle due to using their oil. Having seen some of the DI engine UOAs over in the PCMO oil analysis section-maybe GM did need to do something-but 32 cents a gallon royalty is RIDICULOUS!!

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
I keep seeing the term Dexos oil tossed around. Dexos is not an oil, it's a spec like GM4718 was a spec. It is not a separate product.


I feel the same way.IMO it makes life a lot easier than all these specs,just combine them and give them a name.We have been working with this for decades with Dextron,Mercon,ATF4,Type F, etc.

Same deal with Antifreeze,every manufacturer specs something different and we all know what a PITA that has become.
Simply looking for the Dexos spec for GM cars will make oil shopping much easier for the average consumer,i like the idea.

 

[cp3]

Wasn't there a link to an article posted that says that the per gallon fee is being dropped?

Personally, I'm not sure how dexos is any more confusing than the previous specs. It is not proprietary, I don't think GM will "name" their bottled oil dexos and if you only have to look for the dexos logo and not read the fine print it should be easier. For sure no more confusing than having M1 on the cap. I can guarantee that there are people who will only use M1 because that is on the cap.

 

[shpankey]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
I think the bashing results from the fact that GM is basically owned by "us", the American taxpayer-and anybody who buys an '11 GM vehicle-is going to have to (probably?) pay more for oil, and oil changes, due to the Dexos specs. I am going to talk to some of the Valvoline corp. oil change guys I deal with, and see what their policy will be if there is a problem w/a GM vehicle due to using their oil. Having seen some of the DI engine UOAs over in the PCMO oil analysis section-maybe GM did need to do something-but 32 cents a gallon royalty is RIDICULOUS!!

I believe they dropped that 32 cents per gallon deal and just have a $1,000 a year spec fee, which is basically nothing for a company like XOM and Pennzoil, Valvoline, etc.

And yes, GM absolutely needed this spec to help deal with these new Direct Injected engines here in America where our cars don't get to run in lean mode. Have you seen pictures of D.I. Turbo car Intake Valves w/ just 15k miles on them? I have and believe me, it's absolutely HIDEOUS buildup! Heck, my D.I. Turbo has already lost a significant amount of performance and I only have 21k miles on it. And I had a catch can on for awhile, change my oil super early all the time and have even used top notch oils like Red Line, Royal Purple and the like. This is a real major issue GM has on it's hands. Bigger than most people realize. Unless we get to eventually run in lean mode like the Europeans, our cars are basically fubar'd. This is one way GM is helping to combat the issue and I for one applaud them.

 

[LordAbbett]

If you are referring to march 31 2010 Lube Report article they did not drop the royalty per gallon.
They only changed how they would calculate it

In that article they were switching to "flat" fee based on how many gallons a company was expected to sell instead of actually counting how many they sell. I don't see much difference

 

[LS2JSTS]

The oil companies and blenders apparently see it differently. Their big complaint was that they would much prefer a flat fee, which as you say, they eventually got.
They claim, rightly so, that a flat fee allows them to better/more easily factor that number into their bottom line.

 

[LordAbbett]

It makes their accounting more simple yes

 

[LordAbbett]

I just hope thet Gm actually does what it says will do. Use these higher product royalties in these engine oil testing and other R&D as opposed to being a money maker for them and down the road all the other auto makers to jump on board as well
The dexos spec to looks be very good
SN/GF-5 will probaly only be around 5 yrs or so

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: LordAbbett
I just hope thet Gm actually does what it says will do. Use these higher product royalties in these engine oil testing and other R&D as opposed to being a money maker for them....


I brought this up in PM with another poster the other day. The fact is Ford and GM already spend vast amounts of cash on oil and engine testing. I dont have any concrete numbers to provide but I would be very surprised if GM and Ford dont already spend more money testing oil and engines than any oil company out there. When you figure some of the blenders dont even have their own test labs, it's not hard to see GM is just trying to recoup some of the cash they have been investing for YEARS.



A link to some of Fords test facilities.....

http://www.testprofessionals.com/fac.html

As per the fees....What does GM collect now for the specs already in place? What does Toyota collect in fees for oils that display their spec? What does BMW collect from Castrol for their spec oil?

Are the fees that are currently being collected for 6094 and 4718 greater than the fees to be collected for Dexos1?

 

[LordAbbett]

I have not found any on info on what 6094 or 4718 actually costs the oil cos in fees and royalties. The oil cos did not respond to the lube reports article, regarding fees. I would be surprised if Dexos fees etc is cheaper the 6094 and 4718 combined. I mean in what does it add to the cost of a qt of oil. If this info is out there I would like to read it.
I really only know what ILMA has said.

 

[LordAbbett]

As for Toyota I have n idea what they make on there spec. Do you?
I guess I've never seen a bottle of oil with their spec

 

[LS2JSTS]

I don't know either. Just trying to point out that the people around here(not you, LA) claiming this is ridiculus and making bold statements against GM because of the "fee"...probably dont know either.

More to your point. Lets assume it's slightly more, I still stand behind my point that it isn't about "profit" it's about merely recouping part of the vast amounts of cash they already invest in testing oil and engines.

In the end it's no different in practice than any other spec that is placed on an oil bottle, there is a fee or license involved.