SM oil- is it safe?

lamont cranston · Mar 8, 2005

As for the new SM oils, I really want someone like Laurence Olivier to get his dental drill going, strap the tribologists to the chair and ask them "Is it safe?".

I'm getting the creepy feeling this time around, going from SL to SM oils, that new isn't really improved, and the SM oils aren't a better product. It sounds like something is being gimicked to meet some govt/industry test that has nothing to do with making my engine last longer.

But then again I'm sure I'm just getting old, cranky, and paranoid.

Big Jim · Mar 8, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by lamont cranston:
But then again I'm sure I'm just getting old, cranky, and paranoid.

Arn't we all?

The standards get stiffer each time there is an upgrade in standards.

Yes, the SM is better. Is it significantly better? That is hard to say, at least until there is a bit more of a track record.

Are the oil companies still dialing in the best way to meet the standards? Probably.

It has been my opinion that the performance difference between dino oils and synthetic oils is becoming less and less. Each time there is a new standard, that gap closes a bit more.

A few years ago, IIRC it was when the move was made from SH, Castrol protested the change and it was delayed for a few months. Basically they felt that the change had very little to do with the performance of the oil but more to do with the record keeping. They lost. It is interesting that they were also complaining that to meet the new specs the next time around that they would need to blend in some synthetic. They didn't have to, another way to meet the spec was found, but it was an indication of where the industry had to go somewhere in the future. I think that the future is now.

Bryanccfshr · Mar 8, 2005

In order to meet certain specifications it has to be safe. I am certain their is some discomfort with the lower readings of traditional adds, at the same time I believe better less traditional adds are being used to beef up the formulas to deal with the lower phospherous and zinc.

Diphenylamine comes to mind as the add that is propping newer oils up.

ediamiam · Mar 8, 2005

Only the shadow knows for sure.

ebaker · Mar 8, 2005

I'm getting the impression that the dino SM oils ars better but the Syn SM's are worse than SL.

fuel tanker man · Mar 8, 2005

I say screw 'em...

I'm gonna just put that zinc and phosphorous right back in there.

The 4 cylinder STP formula is a thinner version of the original, and it contains plenty of ZDDP without adding a lot of moly (which may not be needed in the newer oil). About 1/3 of a bottle for 4 quarts of oil should be sufficient.

I say "better to have it and not need it than to need it an not have it."

Dan

Pablo · Mar 8, 2005

SM = base oils better....add pack lightened in some cases....(VERY GENERAL statement)....but probably should be OK in 99% of the cars on the road....

Blue99 · Mar 8, 2005

I really think that the biggest change for SM/GF-4 is not the reduced phos levels, but rather the upgrade in base oils & add packs to meet the increased oxidation & volatility requirements.

As an example, the GF-4 Sequence IIIG & VIB tests are driving the 5W-30 formulations to GRP II, II/III blends or all GRP III.

The all new formulations we are starting to see are probably more of a result of new add packs developed for use with these base oils rather than just the reduction in ZDDP.

90lsteg · Mar 8, 2005

Newbie question:

How safe is the STP 4 cylinder treatment as an oil additive? I get the impression from my reading the forums that LC and Sheaffers 132 are the only ones that have been tested by members of BITOG to be effective and safe.

wavinwayne · Mar 8, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by 90lsteg:
Newbie question:

How safe is the STP 4 cylinder treatment as an oil additive? I get the impression from my reading the forums that LC and Sheaffers 132 are the only ones that have been tested by members of BITOG to be effective and safe.

FWIW, folks around here seem to like Valvoline Synpower oil treatment, too.

Al · Mar 8, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by 90lsteg:
I get the impression from my reading the forums that LC and Sheaffers 132 are the only ones that have been tested by members of BITOG to be effective and safe.

I wouldn't consider using it. There have been discussions that the wrong type of moly can actually be harmful. And really the 500-600 ppm in RedLine hasn't shown any reduction in wear. Its probable that in flat out racing/abuse situations more than 100 ppm moly might be a benefit, but not in normal driving situations.

fuel tanker man · Mar 9, 2005

According the the guy I spoke with at STP, there's no moly in that stuff--to speak of, anyway. It's basically just a cocktail of zinc, phosphorous, some VII's (viscosity index improvers; there aren't as many in the 4 cylinder "red bottle" formula as you'll get in the 8 cylinder "blue bottle") and rust inhibitors (I suppose you could call bacon fat a rust inhibitor) and detergent--probably calcium but that's a guess.

Dan

TallPaul · Mar 9, 2005

Fuel tanker man. The orange STP looks interesting. Maybe I'll call them tomorrow and see just how much zinc and phosphorus and other goodies are in it. Also the viscosity.

I will note that Valvoline claims the Synpower Oil Treatment has "4X the Oxidation Protection (PDSC test)" and protects longer than STP (about 50% longer per TFOUT oxidation Test). However, since we are after ZDDP, we need to compare those parameters.

Might be interesting to VOA the stuff. But my near-term solution was to stash 136 quarts of SL oil--good for a few years or so of avoiding SM.

I do hope the orange bottle is significantly thinner than the blue bottle. The blue bottle is so thick that it doesn't want to shake when you shake the bottle. Synpower will shake fairly well (spec 100 cSt).

pscholte · Mar 9, 2005

I hear it's................brown.

Terry · Mar 9, 2005

On the test bench and engine stands the SM/GF 4 oils look good to me and using better but much more expensive technology to replace the old AW/EP adds that should have been shelved long ago.

farrarfan1 · Mar 9, 2005

Member # 9 has spoken. Nothing more needs to be said.Thanks Terry for putting to rest any lingering doubts about SM.

Terry · Mar 9, 2005

Past performance is no indication of future returns !

Seriously the oil formulations I am seeing are very good for the SM group. Bout time.

Use a low cost well built SM oil and add LC, with a periodic RX cleaning before drain and you will achieve performance that only the high end syns could offer a few years ago.

And for goodness sake please draw at least a annual oil analysis !

jbas · Mar 9, 2005

quote:

Use a low cost well built SM oil and add LC

Don't stop here, Terry! Can you give a list, even a short list, of oils falling into this category? I was in a Walmart today, thought I saw the SM/CF Havoline at $1.42.

TallPaul · Mar 9, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by Terry:
Use a low cost well built SM oil and add LC

I'm just wondering how well built these oils are if we need to add Lube Control?

jbas · Mar 9, 2005

Well, remember TP that the LC folks advertise that LC plus a good oil (OK, "low cost well built" oil) can go up to 10,000 miles OCI. Geez Loueeezzz, I'm adding LC to Amsoil!!!! Talk about spending the bucks!!

SM oil- is it safe?

Similar threads