SHELL conventional : S.N./GF-5 ; Technical ...

[odie]

Data Sheet from JULY 2010 , www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140003596613_201007092226.pdf . Here's the T.D.S. for the S.M./GF-4 conventional from August 2007 , www.shellusserver.com/products/pdf/FormulaShellMotorOils.pdf . There is a difference between the 2 conventionals , unlike the SHELL Full Synthetic S.M./GF-4 and S.N./GF-5 .

 

[odie]

Wonder if the new GF-5 has a pinch of synthetic in it ?

 

[sangyup81]

im sure they're better off hydrocracking the whole thing a little bit more than they are hydrocracking a small part of it a whole lot more

 

[ProfPS]

Take a look at their SAE [SN] 5w30 Syn pds/tds, the values are the same. According to the SN dino specs it looks like it's thinner than Hav DS SM, but from my experience it is thicker. I have noticed it to be thicker in starting in cold temps and at operating temp on a long highway trip.

As I've posted before don't rely too much on pds/tds', it is just a document that the product meet industry specs and in many cases not very accurate.

 

[widman]

I'm launching the SN/GF-5 as we speak. I was talking to the plant manager in Tulsa and he said there is no way of meeting the SN/GF-5 specs without at least some group III, even if you are starting with group II.

So I'll have a group II/group III blend (with the Lubrizol package that has been reported on many times over the last year).

 

[Slick17601]

Look at the pour point for the 5W-20!

 

[odie]

If you look at the pour point for the syntethic 5w-20 S.M./GF-4 and S.N./GF-5 synthetic the conventional S.N./GF-5 has the same pour point of -49 . Huh ? Can that be right ?