Last year I bought a case of Citgo Supergard 5w30 (the dino, not synthetic).It was listed as meeting the GF3 standard. This week I bought another case-same product and it is now listed as meeting GF4. What changed and should I care? It will be used in an old 90 4cyl Grand Am with 120K and a 96 Chrysler V6 with 100k. It was on sale for US $.69 per quart after the mail in rebate so I figured...how bad can it be?
GF3 vs GF4
- Thread starter GrtArtiste
- Start date
- Status
Also a better HT/HS ratio - meaning a more stable oil. In other words you should be able to safely go 4000 miles instead of 3000 for the conservative-minded public-at-large. This is to match the European trend to go longer on their high priced oil.
Here is an article that explains the differences between GF3 and GF4 and the reason behind them.
Industry Adopts New Performance Standards for Motor Oil
Industry Adopts New Performance Standards for Motor Oil
See if your local Meijers has any of the Citgo Superguard Ultralife high mileage oil left. That stuff is loaded with ZDDP and Meijer was offloading it at 80 cents a quart. May still be some left if it was not marked clearance (a lot wasn't but still rang 0.80).
However, I think Buster is right. The new GF-4 standard is at least as stringent as the GF-3 on antiwear and so they would have to replace the reduced zddp with other antiwear additives. It's just that I get a little paranoid when I see such low levels of zddp. We are kind of used to zeroing in on those two parameters (zinc and phosphorus) and if they are low we get worried.
However, I think Buster is right. The new GF-4 standard is at least as stringent as the GF-3 on antiwear and so they would have to replace the reduced zddp with other antiwear additives. It's just that I get a little paranoid when I see such low levels of zddp. We are kind of used to zeroing in on those two parameters (zinc and phosphorus) and if they are low we get worried.
Thank you shanneba for that very interesting article. I'm sure the changes won't mean much to my two old cars. I was just looking for a good quality dino at a good price. Everything else on the shelf was $1.19 or higher.
------------------
I won't hug my oil stash, but I admire it regularly.
GrtArtiste
------------------
I won't hug my oil stash, but I admire it regularly.
GrtArtiste
The whole industry is changing over to GF4. The only GF3 is old stock. The answer to your question is that all brands are GF4 unless you find some old inventory.
Some of the "high mileage" oils may have remained GF-3/SL. Last I looked at the product data sheets for Citgo Superguard Ultralife, it still listed GF-3/SL. Of course, they don't always get those data sheets updated promptly.
I believe some of the independent blenders are still actively pushing GF-3 out the door, too*, so don't assume anything in the case of some store-brand oils. (That said, I finally found SuperTech conventional and synthetic in GF-4 out here on the west coast - their 10W-30 synthetic looks real interesting at $12.04 in the 5-quart jugs!) For those who want a deal on a name brand GF-4, check out Dollar Tree Stores: Phillips 66 TropArtic Synthetic Blend GF-4 5W-20, 5W-30, and 10W-30 for a buck-a-quart. (I personally relieved the Rancho Cucamonga store of three cases of the 10W-30 synthetic-blend yesterday. The manager thought I was crazy - yeah, like a freakin' fox. Thank goodness for store managers who're clueless about the latest motor oil developments.
)
*API retracted earlier efforts to crack down on continued GF-3 production according to Lube Report last week - this latest "march forward" in oil specs is turning into a semi-fiasco even though the spec, itself, really is a worthwhile improvement. The problem for the independents is that Group II+ and Group III base stocks are in very high demand for the 5W-20 and 5W-30 viscosities. On the other hand, ALL of ConicoPhillips multi-weights through 10W-30 are now blended using Group III and Group II exclusively ("when ya' got the pump, ya' get the jump") which qualifies them as syn-blends. Blending in Group III base stocks for these GF-4 multiweights is great for consumers but not completely necessary - Group II will do with a reasonably solid additive package. I'm just wondering whether ConocoPhillips' strategy is to further tighten the market on available Group III and Group II+ supplies in order to squeeze the independents out once and for all. Remember when it was posted six months ago or so on BITOG that ALL of the upcoming conventional Mobil GF-4 oils would be blended with only Group III base stocks? While I was vocal to the point of outright skepticism at the time, now I'm not so sure. Might ExxonMobil have also had a similar strategy in mind to what I'm suspecting of ConocoPhillips? If so (and that's by NO means a given), ExxonMibil's lawyers might've suggested best not to make a public announcement in print to avoid an antitrust investigation. (ConocoPhillips might've left themselves open to just such a scenario by publically announcing that their entry-level GF-4 oils would henceforth be synthetic blends. Dunno - just a wicked thought. Y'all just take it as you will . . .)
*API retracted earlier efforts to crack down on continued GF-3 production according to Lube Report last week - this latest "march forward" in oil specs is turning into a semi-fiasco even though the spec, itself, really is a worthwhile improvement. The problem for the independents is that Group II+ and Group III base stocks are in very high demand for the 5W-20 and 5W-30 viscosities. On the other hand, ALL of ConicoPhillips multi-weights through 10W-30 are now blended using Group III and Group II exclusively ("when ya' got the pump, ya' get the jump") which qualifies them as syn-blends. Blending in Group III base stocks for these GF-4 multiweights is great for consumers but not completely necessary - Group II will do with a reasonably solid additive package. I'm just wondering whether ConocoPhillips' strategy is to further tighten the market on available Group III and Group II+ supplies in order to squeeze the independents out once and for all. Remember when it was posted six months ago or so on BITOG that ALL of the upcoming conventional Mobil GF-4 oils would be blended with only Group III base stocks? While I was vocal to the point of outright skepticism at the time, now I'm not so sure. Might ExxonMobil have also had a similar strategy in mind to what I'm suspecting of ConocoPhillips? If so (and that's by NO means a given), ExxonMibil's lawyers might've suggested best not to make a public announcement in print to avoid an antitrust investigation. (ConocoPhillips might've left themselves open to just such a scenario by publically announcing that their entry-level GF-4 oils would henceforth be synthetic blends. Dunno - just a wicked thought. Y'all just take it as you will . . .)
- Status