Maybe this question was asked, but why you do not change it yourself?
Toyota dealer uncertainty in the oil viscosity used
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
Yes, but you failed to recognize it's a trick question (for dealer) on purpose.
I bet ya that TGMO 0w16 API SN/RC is really a GF-6B in the bottle.
But I do have to ask, what API service category matches GF-6B?, because on api.org site they specifically call out "GF-6A" , they do not say SP covers "GF-6's" or "A & B", but they call out "A" only.
And right in post #1 of this bitog thread
The logic follows that 6A's are back compat with previous GF's, but they specifically call out 6B's WILL NOT be back compat with previous GF's.
a API SN/RC 0w16 IS NOT a GF-6 oil, at least not by bottle specs. If a new 0w16 is in a "GF-6B" Shield bottle, then it appears the GF-6B cannot be used where the API SN/RC was previously used.... at least not allowed by their words....... Why all of a sudden the api.org site says the GF-6B is back compat but 1,000 other sites out there say "no it's not"?
And to boot, if GF-6B's were back compat, then why not just say they are back compat and not words that say "it can replace API SN and API SN/SN+"? Are there any 0w16's that are not SN or SN+ ???
Attachments
Last edited:
Because they are the authority on the subject matter ... all those other sites seem to be parroting a misconception that grew legs at some point about GF-6B.
What do you think "can replace" means? Basic logic says that "can replace" = "back compatible".
You really think the API website information is false? If the API doesn't know, nobody does.
Last edited:
But they called it out in specific words, why not just say "is back compat"?
But let me ask, is there a HTHS spec range for API SN or SN+?
I only listed the table API has on their site. It specifically says SP is for GF-6A. Maybe a goof on their part? You trying to shoot the messenger.
"SP matches ILSAC HF-6A", so it says. It does not say "matches 6B", or "matches all GF-6's", or "matches 6A and 6B".
Was just pointing that out.
Last edited:
Facepalm
No, HTHS ranges/minimums are associated with the viscosity ratings, not API ratings. Go find and look at SAE J300.
Last edited:
These are the official API 1509 documents. See the first one (engine-oil licensing and certification system), pages 74, 131, and 135. 0W-16 is explicitly part of API SP. GF-6B is restricted to 0W-16 only, and you can't even have 5W-16 in GF-6B.
www.api.org
There is a lot of detail on licensing in the beginning of the document. I didn't go through the tables in pages 74 and 135, but I'm pretty sure API SP with Resource Conserving in the SAE 0W-16 viscosity grade is equivalent to ILSAC GF-6B.
API 1509 Documents
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Our more than 600 corporate members, from the largest major oil company to the smallest of independents, come from all segments of the industry.
www.api.org
There is a lot of detail on licensing in the beginning of the document. I didn't go through the tables in pages 74 and 135, but I'm pretty sure API SP with Resource Conserving in the SAE 0W-16 viscosity grade is equivalent to ILSAC GF-6B.
New cars only use synthetic oil. You can't have TGMO 10W-30 in this car, which is conventional. TGMO 0W-16 isn't available in draft—it's only available in bottle.If the dealer was any smarter, they would have used10W30 in the heat of CA but I know you are a thinie.
So their printer can't print 0W16 but it can print 0W20? What kind of printer is that? can it print my paychecks?
You should have asked them to show you the barrel of 0W16 and also made sure they shake it.
There is no need for thicker oil unless the car is driven hard. There is no point in buying a Gen 4 Prius/Prius Prime, which gets ~ 70 mpg, and then putting a large dent in that mpg buy running two, three, four, or five SAE viscosity grades higher than recommended. The recommended viscosity grade is SAE sixteen, not sixty.
I also often drive in the EV mode, as this is a plug-in car, which makes the engine oil a moot issue. It's too bad that it's actually cheaper to drive this car with the gasoline engine, as it gets ~ 70 mpg and gasoline is very cheap these days.
It can't be GTL or PAO because ExxonMobil always identifies them in the MSDS.
The formulation of TGMO has always been different than that of Mobil Super. TGMO is (or used to be) made by the ExxonMobil Industrial Lubricants division, which also makes Mobil Delvac HDEO.
Last edited:
However different the formulations may be, there's some similarity shown. And with Mobil's oils added right below TGMOs on Toyota's page https://toyota.jp/after_service/car_care/yohin/engine_room/engine_oil/
there may be some motivation to maximize distinction. Otherwise I'd also expect them to note GTL or PAO. In this case...
Last edited:
That Mobil Super 0W-16 MSDS is indeed identical to the TGMO 0W-16 SP MSDS in Japanese. They are probably the same then. We can look at the four-digit RN numbers on the bottles to confirm. I wonder if the American TGMO is different than the Japanese TGMO, even though they are both made by ExxonMobil. Perhaps Toyota Japan buys bulk Mobil Super and puts it in TGMO cans.
I just remembered that ExxonMobil doesn't display some Group III base stocks in the MSDS; so, that TGMO/Mobil Super 0W-16 SP MSDS could be all Group III. Mobil Super normally wouldn't use an appreciable POE or AN content, as it's a cheaper, lower-tier oil.
Last edited:
Right(yes). I asked it because I was looking for a reason why a grade of oil might not be backward compat. when the grade is part of a newer "special" category.
So how did all this "GF-6B not back compat" stuff get out there?
If ambient daily air temps are in range of 80F(low) to 118F(hi), why is a 0w16 needed? The car being off for days in my driveway will have the oil up near ambient (100+) even before I start it. Would a 5w30 be ok?
Last edited:
I did not take 6B to mean 0w16 only (restricted). It is said 6B currently only has 0w16 in it, but 12' 8's & 4's might jump in later. Also some chatter about a 6C category. Maybe a better way to say it is "0w16 is in GF-6B". Why can't a 5w16 get into 6B?
I lifted the table from API site, that table had the words "SP matches GF-6A". Must be err on their part.
Last edited:
But GF-6B is compatible for vehicles calling out 0W-16 SN/SN+ per the API. Who is more official on oil ratings than the API?
Who knows why there seems to be confusion on GF-6B. Something gets stated or misinterpreted early on, then grows legs and spreads like CV-19.
People coming from ILSAC GF-4, GF-5 somewhere in their cars' manuals or similar need to know if they can use GF-6. They can (GF-6A being "backwards compatible") and they cannot (GF-6B because of lowered HTHSV not being "backwards compatible"). That's all.
Like VW 507 not being fully backwards compatible because of VW 506... having special additives that some engines might need. Those are stuck to 506. In case of ILSAC there's GF-6B embracing 0W-16 and there's GF-6A not dropping HTHSV. That way no one should be left behind.
Like CK-4 being backwards compatible to CJ-4 but FA-4 because of lowered HTHSV not being seen as backwards compatible.
Just have your oil changed by Toyota dealers and don't ever open the bonnet on your own.
Like VW 507 not being fully backwards compatible because of VW 506... having special additives that some engines might need. Those are stuck to 506. In case of ILSAC there's GF-6B embracing 0W-16 and there's GF-6A not dropping HTHSV. That way no one should be left behind.
Like CK-4 being backwards compatible to CJ-4 but FA-4 because of lowered HTHSV not being seen as backwards compatible.
Just have your oil changed by Toyota dealers and don't ever open the bonnet on your own.
Last edited:
Similar threads
