After viewing the 1st GF-4 VOA/UOA from Carpy, I really think all the worry about GF-4 is just that, worry. Especially the concerns about lack of ZDDP. So, I did some looking at data sheets from Chevron/Havoline, and you know what, SL Havoline has LESS ZDDP than SM!!! It's by about .00000000001%! Also, if you look at analysis results, the batches of SL/GF-3 from say, the last year, have all had less than GF-4 levels of ZDDP, on average. The very 1st batches of SL/GF-3 had around 1000 ppm ZDDP. So, I think for the last year at least, maybe 2 years, we've essentially been using the GF-4 levels of additives. The performance requirements for GF-4 in certain areas are a lot more strict than GF-3, so I welcome GF-4! Also, seems like many companies, like Pennzoil and Valvoline, will start using moly even more than they have in the past, with GF-4. So essentially what we're getting with GF-4 is even better base stocks with roughly the same level of ZDDP, and way way more moly then the last batches of GF-3. Thoughts?
Thoughts on GF-4
- Thread starter Drew99GT
- Start date
- Status
I think you make a good point. I don't have much to add other then maybe only for high performance/high horsepower cars will an abundance of ZDP be needed. Reason I say that is because every racing oil VOA on BITOG, from M1R to 76, all have very high doses of ZDP.
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.
Not to sound stupid but what is a "Flat tappet cam?"
My cam acts directly on the rockers which directly acts on the valves. No hydraulic stuff at all. Do I have to worry with less Zinc or am I in the clear?
Ken
I believe the blenders have been transitioning the ZDDP levels downward in anticipation of "DM/GF-4" and substituting other EP additives to compensate - such as Moly. The only thing "magic" about ZDDP is that it's CHEAP.
Engines that use a lifter and a pushrod to activate the rocker arm. Mostly older Ford, GM and Chrysler v8's where the lifter actully rides on the cam loab with only splash lubrication.
Most newer v8's use a lifter with a small wheel...Roller lifter.
Flat tappets as opposed to roller tappets. I've got a similar setup to yours on my Hyundai V6 - direct acting "bucket" tappets (although my engine's tappets are hydraulic so I don't ever have to futz with shims). I have every expectation my engine's gonna enjoy a long, healthy life.
Buster - My understanding, from reading this article, is that the problem is with the 5W-20 grade oils, as even the reference oils cannot pass the test, every time.
Are these just borderline fails?
It may be a bit of a stretch to expect the 5W-20's to show a 2% fuel economy increase after the 16 hr & 96 hr aging periods of the Sequence VIB.
Are these just borderline fails?
It may be a bit of a stretch to expect the 5W-20's to show a 2% fuel economy increase after the 16 hr & 96 hr aging periods of the Sequence VIB.
I can say for certain that my milage is down at least 3% with the GF-4 DriveClean
After looking over all the Virgin Analysis of the new GF-4 oil, more specifically the Mobil 1, I'm not too happy about it. I guess we will have to wait for the UOA's to start comming in, but the Mobil 1 GF-4 took a beating in additive reduction.
Unless they improved the baseoil someway that isn't showing, I'm not too thrilled with their GF-4 oils so far. Some of the dino oils seem to have as good or better additive packages.
I dunno. Out of all the GF-4 oils we've seen so far, Havoline looks like a winner, but some of the others are weak as **** !
GF-4 is probably a step forward for common dino oils. I'm not so sure when you look at some of the synthetics like M1. They've reduced their additive package substantially in the SM/GF-4 versions. We'll know in a few months how they compare to the old SL/GF-3 formulations...
Patman
Staff member
I wonder if one of the reasons Mobil 1 came out with their EP lineup (with higher levels of ZDDP) was because they didn't like what they were seeing (in terms of wear) with the new GF4 version of the regular synthetic they brought out?
I think the dino GF-4 oils are an improvement as jsharp said, but I'm not sure the full synthetics are. As Molekule stated, chemists are working really hard for replacement of ZDDP. As he has said many times, their are other better additives out their. I think cost is a huge issue.
Most of Mobil's GF-4 oils still meet the A1/A5/B1/B5 other then the 5w30 which only meets tha A1/B1 spec. The EP oils seem to be well built. I also want to see the additive package of the Mobil 7500. That could be a good buy. I think these GF-4 demands are hurting companies like Amsoil. I'm sure they will get around it but I bet they hate this spec.
Well, keep in mind the tendency at BITOG to rate an oil based on the amount of metallic adds that show up in UOA/VOA analysis.
Moly, Boron & ZDDP are multi-functional adds, and may serve anti-oxidant or detergent/dispersant duties in addition to anti-wear.
As an example, look at the VOA for Mystik GF-4 5w30.
Is this formulation with 200-300 ppm of moly, described as a "well built" oil with plenty of AW protection?
Or is it viewed as a formulation that needs the anti-oxidant help of 200-300 ppm moly to enable the largely Grp I base oils to pass the GF-4 test sequences?
Moly, Boron & ZDDP are multi-functional adds, and may serve anti-oxidant or detergent/dispersant duties in addition to anti-wear.
As an example, look at the VOA for Mystik GF-4 5w30.
Is this formulation with 200-300 ppm of moly, described as a "well built" oil with plenty of AW protection?
Or is it viewed as a formulation that needs the anti-oxidant help of 200-300 ppm moly to enable the largely Grp I base oils to pass the GF-4 test sequences?
Some of the GF-4 oils look pretty good, like Chevron. They have about the same Zinc and Phosphorus levels as late GF-3 oils, but have more of other additives that should make them better.
BTW, remember oil manufacturers started to change additive levels long before it said SM on the bottle, so comparing a new oil to an oil from last fall isn't very accurate.
-T
BTW, remember oil manufacturers started to change additive levels long before it said SM on the bottle, so comparing a new oil to an oil from last fall isn't very accurate.
-T
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 just put Havoline 5w30 SM GF-4 Conventional in my 350 Buick engine which has flat tappet hydraulic lifters. So I guess you will have one guinea pig for an experiment. I'll let everyone know how if performs.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked