New generations of oils getting worse?

[Drew99GT]

I've seen the comment here and a few other boards that the new SL rated oils are actually inferior to previous generations of oils, such as SJ. Why would that be? Anyone care to expand on this as being legit or just plain BS

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

Not SJ... SH, because of the lower phosphorus mandate in SJ and SL. Also possible that the lower volatility limts cause more Group II to be used, where Group I previously used had higher natural detergency and lubricity.

 

[Steve S]

I thought that an advantage of group 2 or 3 oils is the higher rate of refining would leave less "crud?" in the finished product to break down. This would add more lubricity and less "crud" for the filter to catch. Maybe I have been reading to much Amsoil literature over the years for my own good.

 

[Ken2]

Here's Chevron's marketing blurb about their GR-II base oils: "Compared to Group I base oils, ChevronTexaco Group II base oils significantly reduce additive requirements, due to higher purity and oxidation stability. ChevronTexaco Group II base oils provide higher VI, lower CCS viscosity, and lower volatility." One of the engine makers' needs with the latest oil spec, API-SL is for the oil to be good for a longer drain interval. The car makers had been seeing added warranty costs from car lessees who'd turn their cars back in after the three years, had done very few oil changes, and the car makers re-sold these as "certified" used cars with additional factory warranties. Oil suitable for longer drain intervals would lessen engine damage in these cases and save the car companies money. Ken

 

[csandste]

I think that the new SL oils are the best ever. I would agree that SJ was probably a step backward, however. I'm also a bit afraid of the next generation of oils after SL. Also (and this is a quesiton, not a statement)-- I thought that group I oils excelled in detergency and that group II oils emphasized lubricity. Witness Mobil Drive Clean's lousy spec's. but good reputation for cleanliness which reflects its name. I'm sure this is a simplification. [ January 23, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: csandste ]

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Troxell: Not SJ... SH, because of the lower phosphorus mandate in SJ and SL. Also possible that the lower volatility limts cause more Group II to be used, where Group I previously used had higher natural detergency and lubricity.

---

True, but the base oil isn't the sole determining factor in how well an oil will perform. The additive package is just as important, and those packages are now being specifically designed for Group II oils. Hence, it's probably inaccurate to say that a current SL oil is "inferior" to an older oil.