Thoughts on GF-4

buster · Feb 13, 2005

quote:

Let me put my flame suit on if I may. I think Mobil 1 was not as truly an extended drain capable oil as many believe and I think EM is correcting this and marketing it as such. I don't think their GF-4 will show any significant wear differences from SL versions in normal drains intervals.

I have to disagree, about 2 years ago Mobil 1 looked close to the Mobil 1 Extended Performance oil. With GF-4 and reduced additives, it's hard to make a long drain oil. When I asked Amsoil about GF-4 months ago they said that they don't like it and it poses problems for long drains. Mobil 1 IMO has been as capable as Amsoil for long drains.

jbas · Feb 13, 2005

quote:

When I asked Amsoil about GF-4 months ago they said that they don't like it

How true. They don't even seem to like ILSAC GF-3! Can't find GF-3 on a quart bottle of their 10W-40.

TallPaul · Feb 13, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by jbas:
Can't find GF-3 on a quart bottle of their 10W-40.

I don't think any 10w40s have a GF-3 rating. AFAIK GF-3 goes along with "Energy Conserving" and no 40 weight can pass the test.

Blue99 · Feb 13, 2005

quote:

Let me put my flame suit on if I may. I think Mobil 1 was not as truly an extended drain capable oil as many believe and I think EM is correcting this and marketing it as such. I don't think their GF-4 will show any significant wear differences from SL versions in normal drains intervals.

I agree 100% with the direction Haley is headed with this comment.

With the previous M1 SL version, why continue trying to build extended drain capabilities into an oil selling for $4.37 a quart & having Amsoil compete for the Extended Drain market @ $6 plus?

Plus, as demonstrated here at BITOG, a very high percent of M1 SL users were running 5K to 7K OCI's and were/are not interested in extended drain.

So, with the launch of the EP line, the SM version of regular M1 may have had the add pack reduced to reflect that the majority of users are running OCI's of 10K & less.

haley10 · Feb 13, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by buster:

quote:

Let me put my flame suit on if I may. I think Mobil 1 was not as truly an extended drain capable oil as many believe and I think EM is correcting this and marketing it as such. I don't think their GF-4 will show any significant wear differences from SL versions in normal drains intervals.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree, about 2 years ago Mobil 1 looked close to the Mobil 1 Extended Performance oil. With GF-4 and reduced additives, it's hard to make a long drain oil. When I asked Amsoil about GF-4 months ago they said that they don't like it and it poses problems for long drains. Mobil 1 IMO has been as capable as Amsoil for long drains.

M1 with SuperSyn did have great TBN retention! It also stayed in grade wonderfully, but it was showing me that it would need help from an additive such as LC to go long due to the insolubles rise. Maybe they have an answer to this with the EP? I'd bet they do.

Pennzoil Platinum is claiming to meet GF-4 and will go 15K with the BMW olm, so maybe GF-4 doesn't automatically mean short drains?

I have often thought that excessive zddp can cause thickening over time.

buster · Feb 14, 2005

quote:

but it was showing me that it would need help from an additive such as LC to go long due to the insolubles rise. Maybe they have an answer to this with the EP? I'd bet they do.

True, but so did Amsoil. I didn't notice any difference in long drain potential between M1 GF-3 and Amsoil.

jbas · Feb 14, 2005

quote:

I don't think any 10w40s have a GF-3 rating. AFAIK GF-3 goes along with "Energy Conserving" and no 40 weight can pass the test.

TP is right. The Amsoil XL 10W-40 carried a GF-3 rating very recently, maybe still does, and I was thinking of the comparison between the "brethren" oils. Otherwise, in a short search couldn't find another 10W-40 with a GF-3 rating.

Ken2 · Feb 14, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by sbc350gearhead:
I believe that any problems with SM oils (if there are any), will show themselves when used in an engine with a flat tappet cam.

I think the Sequence IIIG and IVA tests will show no significant cam & tappet wear. These tests are on actual running engines.
http://www.infineum.com/information/api-passenger-sm-2004.html

Ken

Big O Dave · Aug 17, 2005

I ran a search on "zinc flat tappet cam" and this thread came up, so I decided to post this here, instead of starting a new thread.

Check out this thread at the Ford Big Block 385 Series forum... the poster named "Nick" cites some comments from a "GM engineer" who was apparently banned from BITOG. He says SL/SM oils contain little or no zinc, and are therefore not suited for use with flat tappet cams.

At the bottom of the thread it is stated that once a flat tappet cam is broken-in, its need for zinc is greatly diminished.

And, is there any truth to the assertions this supposed GM Engineer is making? Based upon comments in this BITOG thread, it seems that the latest oils have other additives that compensate for the loss of zinc.

Thanks, in advance, for your comments!

Thoughts on GF-4

Similar threads