Will all GF-4 oils be synthetic blended?

Status
Not open for further replies.
5

55Test

Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
1,983
Location
New Brunswick
I've come to the conclusion that the new GF-4 spec is tough to meet, so some of the new GF-4 rated oils are blended with synthetic, am I correct on this? I emailed Castrol a while ago, asking them if their oils will be blended with synthetic. They gave me a cookie-cutter response:

"Please see attached the Typical Inspection Data Sheet for Castrol GTX
motor oil. Castrol does not publish any formulations or changes in
formulations. Our additive systems and base oils are proprietary and
chosen for performance and suitability first. Castrol uses only the
highest quality materials, including base oils."


The data sheet they sent me is out of date, it's dated June 2002. No help there. Someone must know the real deal on this.
 
That is a very real possibility. The statement that Castrol opened up a can of worms when they started replacing real Synthetic with Hydrocrapped as a synthetic has been taken to a new level.To save oil companys $ the words synthetic blend are being used very loosely these days.I bought into the idea to test the quality of the so called new synthetic blend in my truck.The masses (94%)use Jify Lube or other quick lube places so there the ones that are taking the true life from the new cars.We have a big division on this board that endorses the 10" oil change as a replacement for better quality from your engine.That is why they sell all those products that doctor up the cars accross the country instead of making quality affordable for us all.
shocked.gif
 
No.

The oil companies have a balancing act of ingredients vs. the cost of those ingredients.

They can use Group I base oil plus lots of high cost additive package.

They can use Group II or II+ plus less lower cost add pack.

They can use Group I plus Group III or PAO plus less costly add pack.

It all depends on the relative availability and costs of each of these ingredients and the quality of the final product each company wants to put out.


Ken
 
Yes. The last line tells me you agree. The quality has been changed in the Hydrocracked process to call it synthetic. If you were to mix 4 qts of Supertech petroleum oil and one qt of Castrol Syntec you would get in the GF-4 standards a Synthetic Blend.The only true synthetic is the Redline Amsoil and Mobil ones of the world.This is what I read and believe to be true if Mola Terry or Too Slick tell me this is not the case then I will think differently.They opened up a can of worms to give oil companys a chance to call their cheap product synthetic when its really not.The big IF is will it perform as well as the Schaeffer's of the world there blend WE WILL SEE.
shocked.gif
 
Went out today to get some dino oil to use in my relatively new G35's last change before the switch to GC. From what I've seen here on BITOG, I had decided to use Havoline, and was debating with myself whether to choose their 5w-30 or the 10w-30. Interestingly, the 5w-30 is the only one of the Hav products available at my Autozone that has the GF-4 rating, but the bottles say nothing about syns or syn blending. I decided to run the 5w-30 GF-4, with a six ounce shot of LC. I'm now at 4k miles, will run this fill to 7k and sample, and then decide from the results whether to go to the GC. If there's any sign that break-in is not complete, I'll run one further dino change (the Nissan-Infiniti VQ reputedly takes a long time to fully settle in).

What I'm really curious about is how much practical benefit there is in the GF-4 oils as compared to the older formulations. I readily admit to being seduced by "newer must be better" psychology to a certain degree. . .
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ken2:
No.

The oil companies have a balancing act of ingredients vs. the cost of those ingredients.

They can use Group I base oil plus lots of high cost additive package.

They can use Group II or II+ plus less lower cost add pack.

They can use Group I plus Group III or PAO plus less costly add pack.

It all depends on the relative availability and costs of each of these ingredients and the quality of the final product each company wants to put out.


Ken
Click to expand...
I am trying to understand the new GF-4 requirements and it sounds like group I is not feasible at least in the 5W weights. Major oil makers seem to go via the group III route to satisfy GF-4. "lots of high cost additive package" is either not possible due to sulfur and phosphorus caps or simply not cost effective.
 
quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk:
You would think, however, that if they were going with a G-III base, or a mix including G-III that they would loudly proclaim the use of "synthetic" oil in the product. Again, the Havoline 5w-30 I just bought is a GF-4, but the bottle blather is silent as to what's actually inside.
Click to expand...
I hear you, the new SM mobil drive clean is suposedly mostly group III but mobil will not market this synthetic or synthetic blend. Now, it is just harder to know what is inside. But, does it metter to average consumer?
 
Per an article relating to GF-4 on the Chevron website, Chevron can meet the specs with a Group II & II+ blend. So the Supreme and Havoline GF-4 formulations will probably not be considered synthetic blends.
 
You would think, however, that if they were going with a G-III base, or a mix including G-III that they would loudly proclaim the use of "synthetic" oil in the product. Again, the Havoline 5w-30 I just bought is a GF-4, but the bottle blather is silent as to what's actually inside.
 
If the GF-4 will be at least a mix... How will we be able to use Auto-Rx?.... LOL... Now what Frank?

BTW... Auto-Rx worked great on my 89 Honda...Thanks
 
quote:
Originally posted by friendly_jacek:
I am trying to understand the new GF-4 requirements and it sounds like group I is not feasible at least in the 5W weights. Major oil makers seem to go via the group III route to satisfy GF-4. "lots of high cost additive package" is either not possible due to sulfur and phosphorus caps or simply not cost effective. [/QB]
Click to expand...
Ok, found a reference suporting my observation Re: group I oils vs GF-4.
http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/BaseOils/gf4_faq.shtml

According to that, dino GF-4 oils are either group II/II+ or group I/I+ + group III.

Group II/II+ should be OK for AutoRx though.
 
quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk:

What I'm really curious about is how much practical benefit there is in the GF-4 oils as compared to the older formulations. I readily admit to being seduced by "newer must be better" psychology to a certain degree. . .
Click to expand...
I'm curious too but not curious enough to purchase any of it .

There was a post concerning the allowance of 300% more valvetrain wear over SL with these oils . If it's true or I'm not mistaken I ain't touching those oils with a ten foot pole
tongue.gif


If I miss interpited the post please correct me and I'll still not purchase any of it
grin.gif


As far as oxidatives stability goes , I never saw a SL oil thicken up anyway .... talking dinos here .
 
quote:
Originally posted by Motorbike:

quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk:

What I'm really curious about is how much practical benefit there is in the GF-4 oils as compared to the older formulations. I readily admit to being seduced by "newer must be better" psychology to a certain degree. . .
Click to expand...
I'm curious too but not curious enough to purchase any of it .

There was a post concerning the allowance of 300% more valvetrain wear over SL with these oils . If it's true or I'm not mistaken I ain't touching those oils with a ten foot pole
tongue.gif


If I miss interpited the post please correct me and I'll still not purchase any of it
grin.gif


As far as oxidatives stability goes , I never saw a SL oil thicken up anyway .... talking dinos here .
Click to expand...
I raised the 300% issue mentioned above (20 um -> 60 um wear limit) but I was told that apparently spring load on the test valve train is increased. Some of the ILSAC-related press releases I researched stated that the new GF-4 test is twice as stringent on valve wear as GF-3. I guess we have no choice but believe it.

I personally came to believe that for heavy duty, heavy load (read: towing) either API SL/CI-4 or ACEA A3 is the way to go. The GF-4/SM is ideal for short trip, light duty, or winter use.

But, if you have 2004+ car with newer emission control, the GF-4 is the way to go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Motorcraft synthetic blend vs full synthetic
Replies
7
Views
2K
Rinspeed
F
Oil Recommendation Nissan VQ40DE + opinions on current oil/filter
2
Replies
31
Views
667
ka9mnx
D
Can Someone Interpret These Oil Specifications For Me ?
Replies
6
Views
2K
benjy
wwillson
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Pennzoil Q&A GF-6 and GF-7 with the American Petroleum Institute (API) - Answers
2
Replies
22
Views
13K
weaponoffreedom
buster
Oil Specs & Testing Approved Lubricants
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
7K
Nesterenko
Back
Top