This 0W30 is in 6094 but not in 4718

Messages
2,230
Location
Southern Ontario
If an oil appears on the GM6094M list but not in the more...strigent 4718 category, does that necessarily imply that such an oil doesn't meet the 4718M properties? Specifically I am surprised that the Petro Canada 0W-30 oil is in the 6094 but not in 4718.
 
Messages
388
Location
Canada
 Originally Posted By: river_rat
Or possibly they just didn't spend the money to have it tested for the other spec.
Agree, most likely the case.
 

21Rouge

Thread starter
Messages
2,230
Location
Southern Ontario
 Originally Posted By: Iain
Probably. If GM 4718 is not listed, then oil will not meet that spec.
I guess I was thinking that any 0W30 on the 6094 would necessarily satisfy the requirements of 4718. But I would also have thought that the oil company would also foot the bill to do both test
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,147
Location
Florida, Cape Coral
In addition; I think the only engines that GM makes that require 4718 require a 5w30 oil. Why spend the money to test spec an oil with such a limited market?
 
Messages
6,917
Location
NH
GM6094M and GM4718M are two very different oil standards. GM6094M is a very easy oil standard to meet/exceed/get certified to and can be done so by both conventional and synthetic oils. It strictly deals with cold pumpability. GM4718M on the other hand is a much harder standard to meet/exceed/get certified to. It deals with the ability to withstand high temperatures and it MUST be a synthetic oil. Really there is no comparison between the two to be drawn other than they both start with GM. Being on the GM6094M list( or meeting/exceeding the spec )means nothing in regards to that oil's ability to meet/exceed/get certified to the synthetic oil standard.
 

21Rouge

Thread starter
Messages
2,230
Location
Southern Ontario
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Really there is no comparison between the two to be drawn other than they both start with GM. Being on the GM6094M list( or meeting/exceeding the spec )means nothing in regards to that oil's ability to meet/exceed/get certified to the synthetic oil standard.
But is it likely the case that a (energy conserving) 0W30, which right now is necessarily synthetic is further down the road to meeting 4718 than a garden variety synthetic 5W30?
 
Messages
6,917
Location
NH
 Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Really there is no comparison between the two to be drawn other than they both start with GM. Being on the GM6094M list( or meeting/exceeding the spec )means nothing in regards to that oil's ability to meet/exceed/get certified to the synthetic oil standard.
But is it likely the case that a (energy conserving) 0W30, which right now is necessarily synthetic is further down the road to meeting 4718 than a garden variety synthetic 5W30?
I would say no because energy conserving has nothing to do with it. Energy Conserving really has nothing to do with the performance aspect of either GM6094M or GM4718M. API Service level/Energy Conserving can be written into the spec but it has no bearing on how the oil performs in the two things that are the main purpose for each oil spec( ie; cold and heat ). You can have an SL oil that is API certified as energy conserving yet it requires an API SM oil to meet GM4718M now according to the rewritten spec. That spec is about heat and that is all that is really relevent to it performance wise. Also, I am not sure that technically a 0W-30 can meet the spec because I believe GM included weight specific wording. 5W-30 and 10W-30 only. I don't believe any 0W-30 can be certified although they may meet the spec performance requirements?
 

21Rouge

Thread starter
Messages
2,230
Location
Southern Ontario
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Really there is no comparison between the two to be drawn other than they both start with GM. Being on the GM6094M list( or meeting/exceeding the spec )means nothing in regards to that oil's ability to meet/exceed/get certified to the synthetic oil standard.
 Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
But is it likely the case that a (energy conserving) 0W30, which right now is necessarily synthetic is further down the road to meeting 4718 than a garden variety synthetic 5W30?
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I would say no because energy conserving has nothing to do with it. Energy Conserving really has nothing to do with the performance aspect of either GM6094M or GM4718M.
Thanks for the replies but I only mentioned energy conserving in passing as I assume that all GM approved oils are energy conserving? Thats why for example true GC could never be on the list?
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Also, I am not sure that technically a 0W-30 can meet the spec because I believe GM included weight specific wording. 5W-30 and 10W-30 only. I don't believe any 0W-30 can be certified although they may meet the spec performance requirements?
Not quite true as M1 0W30 is an approved GM oil in both categories.
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I don't believe any 0W-30 can be certified although they may meet the spec performance requirements?
But that is kind of what I was getting at in my initial post but clearly not worded well . That is, I was thinking that 0W30 oils are techically superior (meet certain spec performance requirements) to synthetic 5W30 simply because to 'make' such a viscosity implies certain benchmark specs beyond those that can be achieved by a synthetic 5W30.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,919
Location
Southeast
If you must use the 0W30, try the fuel saving Mobil 1. It meets the GM4718M. The GC may provide good protection but why roll the dice with an out of spec oil?
 

21Rouge

Thread starter
Messages
2,230
Location
Southern Ontario
 Originally Posted By: paul246
 Originally Posted By: river_rat
Or possibly they just didn't spend the money to have it tested for the other spec.
Agree, most likely the case.
It appears it wasnt a money issue...in terms of the testing anyways. I emailed a rep. of Petro Canada and received this response today: Unfortunately none of the Petro-Canada brands meet the specifications for high performance GM vehicles (GM4718M). We may offer a product in the future but certainly not at this time.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,917
Location
NH
 Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Really there is no comparison between the two to be drawn other than they both start with GM. Being on the GM6094M list( or meeting/exceeding the spec )means nothing in regards to that oil's ability to meet/exceed/get certified to the synthetic oil standard.
 Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
But is it likely the case that a (energy conserving) 0W30, which right now is necessarily synthetic is further down the road to meeting 4718 than a garden variety synthetic 5W30?
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I would say no because energy conserving has nothing to do with it. Energy Conserving really has nothing to do with the performance aspect of either GM6094M or GM4718M.
Thanks for the replies but I only mentioned energy conserving in passing as I assume that all GM approved oils are energy conserving? Thats why for example true GC could never be on the list?
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Also, I am not sure that technically a 0W-30 can meet the spec because I believe GM included weight specific wording. 5W-30 and 10W-30 only. I don't believe any 0W-30 can be certified although they may meet the spec performance requirements?
Not quite true as M1 0W30 is an approved GM oil in both categories.
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I don't believe any 0W-30 can be certified although they may meet the spec performance requirements?
But that is kind of what I was getting at in my initial post but clearly not worded well . That is, I was thinking that 0W30 oils are techically superior (meet certain spec performance requirements) to synthetic 5W30 simply because to 'make' such a viscosity implies certain benchmark specs beyond those that can be achieved by a synthetic 5W30.
I have an older GM4718M list then because there are no certified 0W-30 oils on it. Just 5W-30 and 10W-30. I would not say a 0W-30 is superior to 5W-30 nor that a 0W-30 has higher bench marks to reach. And again, GM4718M deals solely with heat resistance. Any real benefit to a 0W over a 5W would be in regards to cold pumpability which relates to GM6094M.
 
Messages
989
Location
Iowa
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I have an older GM4718M list then because there are no certified 0W-30 oils on it. Just 5W-30 and 10W-30. I would not say a 0W-30 is superior to 5W-30 nor that a 0W-30 has higher bench marks to reach. And again, GM4718M deals solely with heat resistance. Any real benefit to a 0W over a 5W would be in regards to cold pumpability which relates to GM6094M.
You do have an older list. Mobil 1 0w30 is on GM's list.
 

21Rouge

Thread starter
Messages
2,230
Location
Southern Ontario
 Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
But that is kind of what I was getting at in my initial post but clearly not worded well . That is, I was thinking that 0W30 oils are techically superior (meet certain spec performance requirements) to synthetic 5W30 simply because to 'make' such a viscosity implies certain benchmark specs beyond those that can be achieved by a synthetic 5W30.
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I would not say a 0W-30 is superior to 5W-30. And again, GM4718M deals solely with heat resistance. Any real benefit to a 0W over a 5W would be in regards to cold pumpability which relates to GM6094M.
Okay now I see. Just because a 0W-30 is superior to a synthetic 5W30 for cold pumpability wont imply it will be superior in regards to heat resitance as well.
 
Messages
6,917
Location
NH
 Originally Posted By: Nyquist
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I have an older GM4718M list then because there are no certified 0W-30 oils on it. Just 5W-30 and 10W-30. I would not say a 0W-30 is superior to 5W-30 nor that a 0W-30 has higher bench marks to reach. And again, GM4718M deals solely with heat resistance. Any real benefit to a 0W over a 5W would be in regards to cold pumpability which relates to GM6094M.
You do have an older list. Mobil 1 0w30 is on GM's list.
I double checked = Dec 2007 so it is old. OOOPS!
 
Messages
6,917
Location
NH
 Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Okay now I see. Just because a 0W-30 is superior to a synthetic 5W30 for cold pumpability wont imply it will be superior in regards to heat resitance as well.
\:\!
 
Messages
15,056
Location
Canada
Petro-Canada desigs their oils with cold-temperature performance foremost in mind. They are very thin, Group III oils designed to have very, very low ccs numbers. I suspect this 'lightness' that allows the cold abilities severely hampers their high-temp abilities as a trade off.
 

21Rouge

Thread starter
Messages
2,230
Location
Southern Ontario
 Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I double checked = Dec 2007 so it is old. OOOPS!
The list I have shows a date of August 08. Will there be an updated list for 2009?
 
Top