API SJ versus SM

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

momomeister

Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
232
Location
USA
I'm looking for an explanation when comparing API SJ to SM rated oils.

Quoting from the API Engine Oil guide, SM oils are "For all automotive engines currently in use. Introduced in 2004, SM oils are designed to provide improved oxidation resistance, improved deposit protection, better wear protection, and better low-temperature performance over the life of the oil. Some SM oils may also meet the latest ILSAC specification and/or quality as Energy Conserving"

So, the difference between the SM and SJ rated oils appear to be better additives to protect against oxidation, sludge, wear, and low temp performance.

Is that pretty much what the SM rating is for?
 
Quote:
New cars beginning with the
1994 model year require oils with
an API SH performance rating.
Beginning with 1997, new cars
require an API SJ oil. The year 2001
brought the introduction of SL oils.
SM category is the most recent classification.
It was introduced Nov. 30,
2004. SM oils are designed to provide
improved oxidation resistance,
improved deposit protection, better
wear protection and better low-temperature
performance over the life of
the oil.


https://www.amsoil.com/lit/g52.pdf

http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/index.cfm

http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/pubs/index.cfm
 
I should correct the title to "API SL versus SM"..

Anyway Pablo, basically you pointed me to API and that's were I found the Engine Oil Guide.

I have the 2008 G35 and in all my research here and other websites, GC is one of the better oils for the engine based on UOAs, despite the fact that Infiniti recommends an API SM rated oil.

That being said, is the only "downside", if it even exists when using GC, is the fact that I may not get the "optimum" fuel economy but get a very good motor oil for the engine, wrt engine wear?
 
SJ vs. SM would be valid for me as I am still using lots of SJ closeout oil.
whistle.gif
 
momoeister,

I've asked this same question in one form or another.

I won't say I have found my definitive answer, but Pablo is right on the money.

I believe I asked in the context of API SM Starburst vs. API SM No Starburst which would lend well to you what you are after essentially. i.e. trying to find a strong 30 weight.

Again, I believe the response is correct in that you could 'perhaps' have issue with warranty/emissions.

Does the G35 call for API SM only or API SM plus Starburst? Full syn?
If not, you could open up the whole HDEO can as they are now API SM rated, just not Starburst.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
My bad, I was in a bit of a rush. I was trying to point you here:

http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/pubs/upload/150916thAdd10308forprint-2.pdf

As far as I know GC exceeds the P limit of SM, so you may get a warranty hassle for any emissions related problem, if you must produce records.


Thx for the link. I checked out the link you sent. The max allowed for Phosphorus is 0.08% for SM versus 0.10% for SL..

Wondering if anyone has done a VOA recently of the gold GC. I've searched and there appears to be only one hit by using the terms "German Castrol" or "GC Castrol". Couldn't get a hit with the term "GC".

Anyway, the one and only hit indicated a Phosphorus content of 798 or something like that, close to the limit of SM rated oil. Looks like I might need to do a VOA every time I want to use GC in my car, before I do the oil change, to have proof that I didn't damage the emissions system....
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HondaMan
momoeister,

I've asked this same question in one form or another.

I won't say I have found my definitive answer, but Pablo is right on the money.

I believe I asked in the context of API SM Starburst vs. API SM No Starburst which would lend well to you what you are after essentially. i.e. trying to find a strong 30 weight.

Again, I believe the response is correct in that you could 'perhaps' have issue with warranty/emissions.

Does the G35 call for API SM only or API SM plus Starburst? Full syn?
If not, you could open up the whole HDEO can as they are now API SM rated, just not Starburst.


Hondaman,

Yep, I'm after a good 0w-30 or 5w-30 weight for my G. The G has the API SM and API SM plus Starburst. It does not call for synthetic.

Besides GC, I'm looking at PP 5w-30. I'll take a look at M1 0w-30 and Castrol Syntec 5-30. My first synthetic oil change, which was my previous oil change, was done with using 5 qts M1 5w-30, of which I still have another 6 qts.. Might end up going back to M1 5w-30, if I have to..
 
Is it safe to say SM oils are group2/2+, and or a mix with some group 3 base, whereas SJ/SL oils may well be a group 1 product, particullary the SJ versions?
 
Originally Posted By: jldcol
Is it safe to say SM oils are group2/2+, and or a mix with some group 3 base, whereas SJ/SL oils may well be a group 1 product, particullary the SJ versions?


I believe the answers to your questions are no, on all three counts.

There are dino or synthetic SM oils. For the synthetics, M1 0w-40 (believe to be Group IV based) and dino, Mobil Clean 5000, Pennzoil YB, etc.

Since SM rated oils are backwards compatible, they can be used in SL or SJ applications too. Now, if you want a specific example, GC is SL/SJ rated and is believe to be Group IV based. I'd have to look for a SL/SJ based dino but wouldn't doubt that they exist.

If I'm wrong, anyone, please correct me..
 
Yes, but I believe what the previous poster was asking was if, in order to have an SM dino, is it pretty much necessary to use group II or higher base stocks?

GC's SL rating is not due to base stock quality, it's additive levels, AFAIK.
 
i have API SM Mobil 1 0W40 at the moment...

and i can ashure you that SM is the biggest [censored] ever allowed.

one can easyly see the consequences:
for engine-wear sake API SM must be desregarded... it is the codex alumentarius of the engine health.. it follows the directive principle: "to prohibit access to all the good nutrients that really feed and suport your body"

you see all modern engines here in europe... just listen
they sheer
they clunck
they knock

the OCI recomendations also to blame in that...
you see in UOA almost no oil does 15K km and "the market" is recomending 20k 30k 50k ... nonsense
every earable problem simptom, related to engine lube that you can possible imagine... it happens in modern engines around here.

"they" say the engines are made to take the damage... high temp combustion chambers, lean AF ratios, etc...

other point being defended with SM is ...
... contamination of catalitic converters by the antiwear additives... omg... so stupid!!!! if the engine is well lubricated... there are no oil leaks to the combustion chamber nor any volatility that migh go out the exaust system...

not even if the engine has exaust gases recirculation

so you test it,,, and see the damage... M1 0W40 "Protection Formula" is the most clear example... yes ... you can yes see a increase in performance if you come from so called pure semi-syntetic or mineral oils ...
the viscosity grades also break down... so that means that the oil is not stable... so ... it is volatile and will be "noticed" at exaust gases ... so.. no wonder if is SM compliant because it wears the engine but... "its ok" it can go to exaust gases... "emission sake", because the antiwear aditives are not present... and do not harm the catalitic converter.

well.. the ZZDP package seens to be presente... 0,1 phosfor

but it also has a 10 TBN and high sulfated ash... problem too much aditives that do not hold toguether so well...

its a cool oil for total conservative driving... no-city, and mainly straignt read driving

emission standards is such a [censored]... if you live in a crouded town... you will see that is useless to have the cars tuned at idle if the pollution is all made in aceleration.. wich is not tested not controlled or even regarded...

such a [censored] the low emission standards and API SM oils

... thus...

maybe there are oils with full SM complience but we dont even hear about them... cepsa perhaps... where the aditives "hold" toguether

also .. the workshop oils are diferent from "open market" to the public consumer oils

they have wear protection ... and they are all legacy specifications..

if the workshop owners are really willing to steal the car owners billing for oils that .. look modern... but fill the engines with the cheapest they can find... this also happens here...

but regardless the factory recomendations... as what is told to the clientes... all the models wither new or old are filled with the same oil that cames from the 208 litle containers and mainly 10w40 here for south europe

well... this is what i see here in europe after some month "looking" at, what the oils world is about... and seeking the best for my undersquare a 1.6 cc engine

"my 2 cents"

conclusion:

SM protects "economical and political interests"
NOT engine wear.


Cheers... (not "shears"... please :))
 
Last edited:
That's why I use Amsoil. They don't meet API certifications for SM except their XL line. Their oils contain higher levels of ZDDP as shown in my VOA's. I have used them for a while and haven't seen any deterioration on my smog reports because it is "Posioning" my converter, but then again my SUV isn't using oil because the higher level of ZDDP is keeping the engine in good shape so it doesn't get to that point. a Catch-22 situation!
 
btw... API SM M1 0W40 has a good point... it keeps the engine very clean even if it is a high milleage one

the deposits simply float dissolved equaly in the oil...which is amazing they dont down fall down to the oil pan and acumulate in layers so easy...

so looks a good break-in oil - i would dare say - its a thin weak oil that does a good job at cleaning the engine

back to api SJ SM

SJ is better than SM
 
Originally Posted By: emaax
btw... API SM M1 0W40 has a good point... it keeps the engine very clean even if it is a high milleage one

the deposits simply float dissolved equaly in the oil...which is amazing they dont down fall down to the oil pan and acumulate in layers so easy...

so looks a good break-in oil - i would dare say - its a thin weak oil that does a good job at cleaning the engine

back to api SJ SM

SJ is better than SM


Same goes with SL versus SM?
 
Originally Posted By: emaax
if the engine is well lubricated... there are no oil leaks to the combustion chamber nor any volatility that migh go out the exaust system...


Agreed. If the engine is well lubricated and everything is seated properly, there should be no oil loss into the combustion side of the engine. Hence, the concern with Phosphorus damaging the catalytic converter should be moot...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: StevieC
That's why I use Amsoil. They don't meet API certifications for SM except their XL line. Their oils contain higher levels of ZDDP as shown in my VOA's. I have used them for a while and haven't seen any deterioration on my smog reports because it is "Posioning" my converter, but then again my SUV isn't using oil because the higher level of ZDDP is keeping the engine in good shape so it doesn't get to that point. a Catch-22 situation!


Yep. I've been looking at VOA's and UOA's for my situation, specifically my G. Some GC VOA's/UOA's show a P content just above the SM limit and others show it below.

So far my car hasn't consumed any oil. Hope it stay's that way, so I can continue to use my stash of GC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Y
ACEA A3/B4 oils still relevant in 2024 for Turbo GDI 'High performance' Engines? - Hyundai ElantraN
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
edyvw
Saikou
Seeking for help to find a good oil for my application (2003 Hyundai Accent)
Replies
1
Views
981
Propflux01
9
Best oil for a 3rd gen 4Rnr w/261k on it?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
6K
rainman49
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
Gas Engine Reliability: Understanding Engine Oil Consumption
Replies
2
Views
826
DirectRejection
Back
Top