Signposts on the Road to GF-5

Messages
2,309
Location
Southwest Virginia
From Lube Report: http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001412051.cfm?x=bfqPB03,bd28TMM
 Quote:
ILSAC GF-5, the new passenger car engine oil specification slated for completion in December, will put better oils in motorists’ crankcases. But its development involves tradeoffs between fuel economy and robustness, according to an expert panel
 Quote:
ILSAC, in cooperation with API and ACC, now is finalizing the latest upgrade, as always associated with government-mandated emissions and fuel economy standards. “When I asked Hannah Murray what Toyota considered most important for GF-5, she said, ‘fuel economy, fuel economy, fuel economy and maybe fuel economy.’ Jim Linden of GM said about the same thing...
 Quote:
Only 0.5 percent of fuel economy improvement over current GF-4 oils is expected to come from the lubricant...But the ACC anticipates a move to lower viscosity grades and continued use of friction modifiers to deliver fuel economy benefits.
 Quote:
For emissions control system protection, a new Sequence IIIGB test will analyze how much phosphorus remains in used oil, with anticipated limits of 78 to 80 percent phosphorus retention, Shah continued. A variety of engine and bench tests, plus more stringent limits for existing tests, are under consideration for oil robustness...“The timing is a challenge and the tradeoffs are a challenge,” Shah concluded, “but GF-5 is a significant upgrade over GF-4.”
 Quote:
“SAE 0W-20 can be formulated entirely with Group III base stocks or a Group II/Group IV mix,” Brown noted...Looking forward to 2015, “expect SAE 0W-20 to grow, although U.S. OEMs are not going to follow until GF-5 is in place. And you don’t need to use PAO to make 0W-20.”
Again government mandated fuel economy and emissions requirements trump oil performance. Tom NJ
 
Messages
33,936
Location
Southern NJ
 Originally Posted By: Johnny
The government should stick to building roads and let the oil companies and automobile manufactures design the lubricants.
+1 May have to spike GF-5 oils with some Redline. I noticed they did not mention where the tradeoffs will occur though specifically. I would hope that engine wear requirements would remain the same from GF-4 to GF-5.
 Quote:
“OEMs want fuel economy first and foremost, plus emissions system protection, oil robustness, turbo coking protection, cam phaser protection and general engine protection,” he continued. But the future of engine oil specs is gaining complexity.
 
Messages
1,565
Location
Elkridge, MD
 Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Again government mandated fuel economy and emissions requirements trump oil performance.
It's amazing how consumers just can't see past fuel economy anymore. Nothing like buying a new car that gets great "fuel economy" every three years to save money and reduce emissions...
 
Messages
33,936
Location
Southern NJ
Cars are very expensive (inflationary) today and people are keeping them longer than ever. For those reasons, many people put engine durability above fuel economy. I'm one of them. I don't need a gain of .5 mpg. I'd rather have a more robust oil.
 
Messages
15,052
Location
Canada
Very interesting comments about 0W-20. I didn't know you could make an oil that thin with just group III - I assumed it had to have some group IV in it for it to have a decent volatility... I'm very suprised that with mans. going to longer and longer drain intervals that the focus is on fuel economy, with no focus on robustness - its being sacrificed.
 
Messages
1,084
Location
Florida, USA
I have not seen any 100% Group IV and above oils that are Energy Saving Formulas, which may be whey none of the the major oil companies have a 100% PAO/Ester stock oil anymore.
 
Messages
25,041
Location
ON, Canada eh?
 Originally Posted By: buster
Cars are very expensive (inflationary) today and people are keeping them longer than ever. For those reasons, many people put engine durability above fuel economy. I'm one of them. I don't need a gain of .5 mpg. I'd rather have a more robust oil.
This is why I run Amsoil, IMO they could care less about meeting API certifications and care more about engine durability and long life change intervals. Screw the .5 in economy!
 Originally Posted By: Johnny
The government should stick to building roads and let the oil companies and automobile manufactures design the lubricants.
Agreed. The crazy thing is if API Certified oils were more robust and focused on Engine protection and longevity then they would last longer within the emission standards because the engines and emission components wouldn't be wearing as fast. With people keeping their cars longer and longer these days is only adding to the problem because the API certified lubricants are geared towards lower fuel consumption trading off engine protection IMO, which is leading to more pollution in the long run if people are keeping their vehicles longer. ;\)
 
Messages
6,318
Location
Canton, GA
 Originally Posted By: Mark888
I have not seen any 100% Group IV and above oils that are Energy Saving Formulas, which may be whey none of the the major oil companies have a 100% PAO/Ester stock oil anymore.
I don`t know for sure,but isnt GC??
 

Tom NJ

Thread starter
Messages
2,309
Location
Southwest Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Mark888
I have not seen any 100% Group IV and above oils that are Energy Saving Formulas, which may be whey none of the the major oil companies have a 100% PAO/Ester stock oil anymore.
Do you know any? The "Energy Conserving" designation is acheived by low viscosity and friction modifiers, and can certainly be met by PAO and/or ester based formlations. They are just hard to find among the majors because they are expensive and all of the specifications required for marketing can be met with Group III blends, including the term "Synthetic". Tom NJ
 
Messages
286
Location
the Netherlands
You're digging your own grave (oil wise) driving huge SUV's around town picking up the kids and getting grocery's. Start driving smaller cars, with smaller engines. But its too late for that I guess.
 
Messages
33,936
Location
Southern NJ
 Quote:
This is why I run Amsoil, IMO they could care less about meeting API certifications and care more about engine durability and long life change intervals.
Not entirely true. Amsoil's older formulations used to be more shear stable (ASL/ATM/SSO/AFL) In order to improve fuel efficiency they all took a hit in HT/HS and are on par with most other brands now. "Energy conserving". Fuel economy is strongly related to HT/HS. It's one reason why M1 0w-40 shears a bit, by design. Notice AFL 5w-40 now has a HT/HS of 3.7 vs the old 4.2. Amsoil AFL always ends up around 11-12 cSt much like M1 0w40.
 
Messages
6,318
Location
Canton, GA
 Originally Posted By: SpitfireS
You're digging your own grave (oil wise) driving huge SUV's around town picking up the kids and getting grocery's. Start driving smaller cars, with smaller engines. But its too late for that I guess.
The winds of Change my friend.
 
Messages
6,388
Location
Washington St.
 Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
From Lube Report: http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001412051.cfm?x=bfqPB03,bd28TMM Again government mandated fuel economy and emissions requirements trump oil performance. Tom NJ
Nonsense. From the same article:
 Quote:
“OEMs want fuel economy first and foremost, plus emissions system protection, oil robustness, turbo coking protection, cam phaser protection and general engine protection,” [Mr. Linden of GM] continued. (Emphasis mine)
Last year we had a trade deficit of almost $14 billion dollars with OPEC countries, plus the non-OPEC oil exporters. That's $14 billion that we don't have to spend and reinvest in the U.S. Remind us why fuel economy isn't important.
 

Tom NJ

Thread starter
Messages
2,309
Location
Southwest Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Ken2
Remind us why fuel economy isn't important.
Never said fuel economy was not important to the country, but to many individuals it is not as important in their motor oil as other factors. Tom NJ
 
Top