SL more robust than SM???

[Ray H]

From what I've gathered reading the same tired arguments in this debate, the "they'll-hafta-tear-my-SL-oil-out-of-my-cold-dead-fingers" crowd stubbornly and irrationally refuses to accept the possibility that extreme levels of ZDDP aren't the end-all of effective antiwear agents. Fortunatley for the rest of us, it's by and large a harmless affliction. (After all, none of 'em are risking damage to my ride...) Personally, I've found I usually get further ahead by looking forward instead of backward, though.

 

[TallPaul]

Redline oil is very robust. Has around 1500 ppm zddp.

HDMO is very robust. Has over 1200 ppm zddp.

Zddp has a long and proved track record.

I add zddp to my SL oil.

 

[UncleS2]

"Personally, I've found I usually get further ahead by looking forward instead of backward, though."

I can only say, Amen, Ray!

I also seem to recall reading somewhere that SM oil was supposed to be more resistant to "cooking onto" the rings/grooves, thus keeping rings woring freer. Has anyone else read anything about this?

 

[lyco5555]

API SM oils provide better valvetrain wear than API SL oils i dont know why this comes up every day , but it does. Every upgrade in API service includes better valvetrain protection . Another thing i see on this site people think if the oil is synthetic it is better than a non-synthetic this also is not true , without a carefully balanced additive package synthetic means nothing.

 

[KJA426]

Then why are the Japanese saying that SM oils are causing increased valvetrain wear?

 

[KJA426]

From what I understand the SL has better additives but the SM has a better base oil.

 

[buster]

Their was some concern by the Japanese that the lower ZDDP would cause increase in engine wear. From what I have read, their is no "single" better replacement additive for ZDDP. It works great. But as Molekule I believe said recently, alternative additives in conjunction can perform very well. When I spoke with Redline, they still believe ZDDP is the best choice at the moment.

 

[Curious Kid]

There has been much opinion that Sl rated oils are more robust than SM versions, but to be honest I can't recall much in my views that presents such a case. I mean, the goal with this latest iteration of oils was not only to cut back on ZDDP concentrations, but to provide better coverage overall in areas of viscosity thickening, valvetrain wear, etc. as I recall (or am I confusing this with coinciding GF-4 specifications?).

Recalling what my manufacture's manual says, I should use SH API spec'ed oil or newer. Granted some compromises are apt to present themselves, but I just find this a little irritating, as do others here I'm sure. Is it REALLY that different to not welcome the latest spec.? I can't help to think that there are new additives that help take the place of the deducted ZDDP, and for which don't present themselves in a VOA or within the not-so-telling MSDS sheets ("trade secretes" and percentages of compositions that don't appear to add-up to 100 - I suppose I should gather come proof of my own concerning this.).

For all those who say that SL rated oil is more robust than SM, could you PLEASE define the term "robust" as you see it applicable, and provide proof for SL>SM.

Thanks.

 

[Curious Kid]

I thought a few individuals made mention of ZDDP not only does a good job but that it was inexpensive relative to other options...which is a plus for the manufacturers.

Quality base oils + Quality add pack that's complimentary to the base oil's characteristics within a given operating environment = Overall oil performance potential. I agree with the need to understand the whole package, like lyco5555 mentioned.

As for the Japanese, is this coming from the manufacturers or from the general inquisitive motoring public? I would like to understand their take on all this if anyone knows.

My engine has flat tappet cam interface unlike the newer engines that use rollers, so I was/am concerned about the drop in what I have been lead to believe IS the neccessary additives to provide lobe protection. I may have been misinformed or messed myself up with all the reading, thinking the engine test bed was changed to test newer oils with the new rollerized cam assemblies.

I guess with all that's going on within the crankcase and the fact that there can only be so much additive added to an oil, that compromises will inevitably exist. Not to say there's nothing better or more potentially encompassing, but for now we just might have to make do with what me have at hand. For those still unsure, that just might bring them to adding suppliments!

I miss the days when I could just grab the weight my manual resommends for the next 6mo of weather, along with a new filter from the local auto store and make do with the change. And then just forget about it! What can I say...I'm a member of BITOG.

 

[KJA426]

I'm playing it safe and adding VSOT to my SM oils.

 

[the_oil_dealer]

i've embraced SM oils. too much zddp can be a bad thing! What happens when it doesnt get consumed? it probably becomes crust somewhere

 

[buster]

Curious kid, I don't think it's really an issue. I believe that article was when the spec. was first released. If the UOA's tell us anything on BITOG, SM oil are excellent. Additional ZDDP doens't always benefit all engines and it's been said on here that with aluminum engines, it's not that beneficial. ZDDP is cheaper than many alternative additives from what I've read before.

 

[Curious Kid]

Thanks guys.

 

[GoldenRod]

quote:

---

"For all those who say that SL rated oil is more robust than SM, could you PLEASE define the term "robust" as you see it applicable, and provide proof for SL>SM."

---

Robust:

A big busted blond German Woman carrying a tray full of ice cold frosty mugs.