Newer API "SM" a step forward or a step back wards?

[Hirev]

Newer API "SM" a step forward or a step backward? For motors that still use flat tappet cams?

I find it interesting API keeps reducing additives such as ZDDP. Then only test newer formulas on roller cam motors. If this stuff is so good why test it only on roller cam motors. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Every one knows OEM roller cams and OEM roller rockers are more forgiving than flat tappet cams. When it comes to Anti-Wear and Extreme Pressure Additives such as ZDDP, Moly, and Antimony.

Could the newer Mobil EP be taken as a statement that yes we know API "SM" suck?

 

[buster]

"Could the newer Mobil EP be taken as a statement that yes we know API "SM" suck? "

For regular low cost dino oils, it's an improvement but for synthetics it's a step backwards. That is why their are two Mobil 1's right now as you mentioned. I'm sure the technology is their. Mobil is working on a GF-4 15k mile oil. ZDDP is still the most cost effective anti-wear additive. I know when I asked Amsoil if they were lowering the ZDDP in their oils to meet GF-4, they said only the XL line. They are very against the ZDDP/Cat converter issue. When the oils are made with very low volatility, I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Alan]

I think SM is a step foward.Better quality synthetic polymers and base oils make an oil more resistant to oxidation.The big name dino SM's are a good deal.

 

[drive it forever]

Where is it I heard that the japanese auto makers expressed concerns over it?

 

[DR Racing]

Just put back what they have taken out with GM E.O.S. Dan

 

[Curious Kid]

Could this also work out to be a way to quicken the market change-over to newer technologies - make older less technically advanced units wear out faster in hopes of promoting replacement???? With this I ponder the merits for environmental protection, but that's based on broad emotional opinion rather than facts.

 

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curious Kid:
Could this also work out to be a way to quicken the market change-over to newer technologies - make older less technically advanced units wear out faster in hopes of promoting replacement???? With this I ponder the merits for environmental protection, but that's based on broad emotional opinion rather than facts.

---

I dunno. People were totally freaked out about the phaseout of leaded gasoline and how it might lead to engine failures. I think the technology will adapt to the reduction of ZDDP. It certainly keeps oil/additive chemists employed.

 

[Curious Kid]

It creates and sustains jobs which makes good economic sense. But what does that do to you or I?...it costs. Interesting how it can work.

 

[buster]

As Molekule and Terry have said for years, their are better alternatives to Zinc and Phosphorus. However, they cost more. ZDDP is a great proven, inexpensive anti-wear additive.

 

[wileyE]

So are we saying that zddp has no substitute? maybe it was used because it was just plain the cheapest way to get the job done? hopefully the new "substitutes" will be even better!

What bothers me is to see reduced zppd levels with NO other additional AW adds. But maybe the better basestocks got that covered? I'm more comfortable with the gl-4 sm's that I can see the extra AW adds.

 

[Volvohead]

Has any API service grade change ever been a step backward? I've been using oils since before the SD days, and can't remember one. I think this would be a first if that were the case with SM. The historical experience seems to make this result unlikely.

 

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
As Molekule and Terry have said for years, their are better alternatives to Zinc and Phosphorus. However, they cost more. ZDDP is a great proven, inexpensive anti-wear additive.

---

Doesn't ZDDP have its limits? I understand it needs to oxidize over several hunded miles before it starts to plate metal surfaces. Hopefully many of the newer AW additives work immediately.

Which gets me to two things I couldn't quite figure out. If ZDDP needs oxidation before it does its magic, why can't it come already oxidized in the bottle. Or would it "drop out" in the bottle? Also - assuming ZDDP is used, would a large sump with a partial change be better? I'm thinking the typical Porsche sumps with an 11-12 quart capacity and about 2/3 drained per oil change. I know there are a lot of people who are freaked out about getting as much of the old "contaminated" oil out of there, but I'd think that's secondary to replenishing the additives.

 

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volvohead:
Has any API service grade change ever been a step backward? I've been using oils since before the SD days, and can't remember one. I think this would be a first if that were the case with SM. The historical experience seems to make this result unlikely.

---

I remember back when API SJ came out, there were rumblings that the additive treat level would be reduced to the point where many high-quality oils that far exceeded SH would have reduced antiwear performance.

Of course the minimum standard always goes up. However - oil manufacturers have been trying to exceed the standard for years.