In looking at the GF-5 specification , wear protection is the same as GF-4 while other parameters such as sludge prevention , exhaust system protection , fuel economy , etc. have been greatly improved . Yet we are hearing of the possibility new GF-5 oils may not contain as much wear protection additives (i.e. moly) as the former GF-4 formulations . I can only derive two reasons why this may be so : 1 . To lower costs 2. In order to meet other parameters of GF-5 some wear additives needed to be reduced - which takes us back to point #1 To lower costs . * I hope I am wrong in that wear protection additives will not be sacrificed in order to meet other criteria of the GF-5 specification .
Wear Protection Slipping in GF-5 Oils ?
- Thread starter ChrisD46
- Start date
- Status
i guess only time,and uoa`s will tell?
Originally Posted By: lexus114
i guess only time,and uoa`s will tell?
x2..
i guess only time,and uoa`s will tell?
x2..
Check out this link:
http://www.gf-5.com/the_story/performance/
Wear protection, as defined by limits on Phosphorous content, is the same as GF4. API SN has additional requirements for Phosphorous retention that should improve wear performance.
http://www.gf-5.com/the_story/performance/
Wear protection, as defined by limits on Phosphorous content, is the same as GF4. API SN has additional requirements for Phosphorous retention that should improve wear performance.
I’ve seen nothing in the specs to suggest that GF-5 will result in more wear over GF-4. But there are at least two scenarios that might result in increased wear, or a perception of increased wear.
1) Meeting GF-5 costs more than GF-4. A previous formulation may have significantly surpassed the GF-4 wear requirements. In order to offer a more cost competitive GF-5 formulation, some of the wear performance might be given up to offset increased costs driven by other GF-5 requirements. Such a formulation change might show up in UOAs as having increased wear.
2) Some newer engine designs may require better wear performance from oil. Even if a new GF-5 formulation has the same wear performance as an earlier GF-4 formulation, it might be perceived that GF-5 doesn’t protect the new engines as well. This could occur if a new engine design which sees nothing but GF-5 but produces higher wear numbers than earlier engine designs produced with GF-4. Never mind that the newer engine could be more demanding of oil and produce the same wear numbers had GF-4 been used. In this case the perception that GF-5 = more wear would be incorrect .
1) Meeting GF-5 costs more than GF-4. A previous formulation may have significantly surpassed the GF-4 wear requirements. In order to offer a more cost competitive GF-5 formulation, some of the wear performance might be given up to offset increased costs driven by other GF-5 requirements. Such a formulation change might show up in UOAs as having increased wear.
2) Some newer engine designs may require better wear performance from oil. Even if a new GF-5 formulation has the same wear performance as an earlier GF-4 formulation, it might be perceived that GF-5 doesn’t protect the new engines as well. This could occur if a new engine design which sees nothing but GF-5 but produces higher wear numbers than earlier engine designs produced with GF-4. Never mind that the newer engine could be more demanding of oil and produce the same wear numbers had GF-4 been used. In this case the perception that GF-5 = more wear would be incorrect .
Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
I’ve seen nothing in the specs to suggest that GF-5 will result in more wear over GF-4. But there are at least two scenarios that might result in increased wear, or a perception of increased wear.
1) Meeting GF-5 costs more than GF-4. A previous formulation may have significantly surpassed the GF-4 wear requirements. In order to offer a more cost competitive GF-5 formulation, some of the wear performance might be given up to offset increased costs driven by other GF-5 requirements. Such a formulation change might show up in UOAs as having increased wear.
2) Some newer engine designs may require better wear performance from oil. Even if a new GF-5 formulation has the same wear performance as an earlier GF-4 formulation, it might be perceived that GF-5 doesn’t protect the new engines as well. This could occur if a new engine design which sees nothing but GF-5 but produces higher wear numbers than earlier engine designs produced with GF-4. Never mind that the newer engine could be more demanding of oil and produce the same wear numbers had GF-4 been used. In this case the perception that GF-5 = more wear would be incorrect .
that sounds about right.
I’ve seen nothing in the specs to suggest that GF-5 will result in more wear over GF-4. But there are at least two scenarios that might result in increased wear, or a perception of increased wear.
1) Meeting GF-5 costs more than GF-4. A previous formulation may have significantly surpassed the GF-4 wear requirements. In order to offer a more cost competitive GF-5 formulation, some of the wear performance might be given up to offset increased costs driven by other GF-5 requirements. Such a formulation change might show up in UOAs as having increased wear.
2) Some newer engine designs may require better wear performance from oil. Even if a new GF-5 formulation has the same wear performance as an earlier GF-4 formulation, it might be perceived that GF-5 doesn’t protect the new engines as well. This could occur if a new engine design which sees nothing but GF-5 but produces higher wear numbers than earlier engine designs produced with GF-4. Never mind that the newer engine could be more demanding of oil and produce the same wear numbers had GF-4 been used. In this case the perception that GF-5 = more wear would be incorrect .
that sounds about right.
The wear should be the same as GF-4 if not better due to the phosphorus retention. It's a trade off that effects emission system durability, compared to Dexos I which falls short http://www.gf-5.com/gsuniverse/sitetemplates/gf5/SPIDER DIAGRAM.html
Ok so far our pyb has improved in the wear dept. moly as an example. Our friends at Mobil seemed to cut back a bit and add a few new things. Overall it looks like in Mobil cost reduction. How it will effect the uoa as said, time will tell. You should be watchful in the voa section might give an insight into what is happening.Havoline is available in SN 5-20 at a local Advance. Overall in mho I do not think it will matter much. If gas hits $6 a gallon who will be driving that much to care???
My opinion is wear reduction has taken a back seat to sludge prevention, fuel economy, and the emissions system. This is only my opinion and nothing more. I seem to be in agreement with the OP.
I don't think the Feds really give a rip about your engine wear. They DO CARE about how clean your exhaust is and the increase in mpg. And they do hope gas gets up to about $10/gal so we will quit driving out cars and polluting the earth. Get a horse or a camel. End of my rant!
Very good comments offering different scenerios ! Other than PYB , my 5K mile OCI's may get cut back to 4K OCI's until more UOA's show up . In Georgia minimal rust possibilities from winter driving, so I can target 250K miles from a vehicle with proper care taking .
Fear mongers running amok again.
Yeah, seriously, less moly in some formulations doesn't mean another anti-wear additive wasn't used in it's place. Moly isn't the end all to wear prevention additives, and if you are so worried just throw in half a can of LubroMoly MoS2 every oil change and be content.
/rant off
/rant off
Hi,
Quest - You said:
"Fear mongers running amok again."
Yes, do you recall the hoo-ha when SL replaced SJ? - the World did'nt end - it won't now either
Quest - You said:
"Fear mongers running amok again."
Yes, do you recall the hoo-ha when SL replaced SJ? - the World did'nt end - it won't now either
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Yes, do you recall the hoo-ha when SL replaced SJ? - the World did'nt end - it won't now either
@Doug:
I also recall the use of 5W20 and all those fear mongering about engine soon grinding to a halt.
After 1 decade of 5W20 goes public: guess how many engines (Ford, Honda, etc.) grind to a halt and ended up in the junk yard?
Q.
Yes, do you recall the hoo-ha when SL replaced SJ? - the World did'nt end - it won't now either
@Doug:
I also recall the use of 5W20 and all those fear mongering about engine soon grinding to a halt.
After 1 decade of 5W20 goes public: guess how many engines (Ford, Honda, etc.) grind to a halt and ended up in the junk yard?
Q.
Hi,
Quest - You are on it!
I also carried out extensive research around the World into "cam failures" in Porsche engines when using Approved SL lubricants. This was promoted on Porsche forums and here on BITOG and it was directed at one Approved lubricant in particular - it was all hogwash!
It was instigated largely by some "Boutique" oil blenders and others with a vested interest
My research was thorough - and one could say "at a number of sources"!
In my experience every ACEA (since inception) and API (last 20 years or so) quality rating advancement has been exactly that!
Quest - You are on it!
I also carried out extensive research around the World into "cam failures" in Porsche engines when using Approved SL lubricants. This was promoted on Porsche forums and here on BITOG and it was directed at one Approved lubricant in particular - it was all hogwash!
It was instigated largely by some "Boutique" oil blenders and others with a vested interest
My research was thorough - and one could say "at a number of sources"!
In my experience every ACEA (since inception) and API (last 20 years or so) quality rating advancement has been exactly that!
Originally Posted By: nooil
And they do hope gas gets up to about $10/gal so we will quit driving out cars and polluting the earth. Get a horse or a camel. End of my rant!
Stop voting for these a-holes that want to destroy your lifestyle but keep their cushy privileged lifestyles. "All for me but none for you".
Whimsey
And they do hope gas gets up to about $10/gal so we will quit driving out cars and polluting the earth. Get a horse or a camel. End of my rant!
Stop voting for these a-holes that want to destroy your lifestyle but keep their cushy privileged lifestyles. "All for me but none for you".
Whimsey
Still makes me wonder why people worry so much....most of the time the rest of the car is well worn out before the engine is....
I only have to look at my wife's cavalier to see that while the engine still runs like new @70k on a diet of mostly M1, rust is popping up in tiny spots in this 8 year old car. It's not the engine I'm worried about anymore!
I only have to look at my wife's cavalier to see that while the engine still runs like new @70k on a diet of mostly M1, rust is popping up in tiny spots in this 8 year old car. It's not the engine I'm worried about anymore!
Originally Posted By: Quest
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Yes, do you recall the hoo-ha when SL replaced SJ? - the World did'nt end - it won't now either
@Doug:
I also recall the use of 5W20 and all those fear mongering about engine soon grinding to a halt.
After 1 decade of 5W20 goes public: guess how many engines (Ford, Honda, etc.) grind to a halt and ended up in the junk yard?
Q.
Yep.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Yes, do you recall the hoo-ha when SL replaced SJ? - the World did'nt end - it won't now either
@Doug:
I also recall the use of 5W20 and all those fear mongering about engine soon grinding to a halt.
After 1 decade of 5W20 goes public: guess how many engines (Ford, Honda, etc.) grind to a halt and ended up in the junk yard?
Q.
Yep.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
