GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference? - Toyota Nation Forum : Toyota Car and Truck Forums


» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Advertisement
Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Toyota Nation Forum : Toyota Car and Truck Forums > Toyota USENET Discussion Groups > alt.autos.toyota > alt.autos.toyota.camry

alt.autos.toyota.camry Toyota Camry discussion newsgroup.

ToyotaNation.com is the premier Toyota Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-07-2005, 05:50 AM   #1 (permalink)
Car Guy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View Car Guy's Photo Gallery
GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?

I have been reading that there is a ILSAC GF-4 based oils coming out and
wanted to know the difference between this and GF-3? Which is better?

I currently use Mobil 1 5W30 year round in my cars and wanted to know if
this GF-4 is going to make Mobil 1 better or worse.

Thanks


  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-07-2005, 09:00 AM   #2 (permalink)
Mark A
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View Mark A's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?

"Car Guy" <ac222@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sI-dnbWpSbT8AOHfRVn-gw@rogers.com...[color=blue]
>I have been reading that there is a ILSAC GF-4 based oils coming out and
>wanted to know the difference between this and GF-3? Which is better?
>
> I currently use Mobil 1 5W30 year round in my cars and wanted to know if
> this GF-4 is going to make Mobil 1 better or worse.
>
> Thanks[/color]
Mobil 1 5W-30 meets the standards for ILSAC GF-4 (API Certified -
Starburst). I suspect that no change in the formula was necessary to meet
the new standard (but don't know for sure).

Mobil Clean 7500 (synthetic blend) and Mobil Clean 5000 (conventional oil)
also meet the new standard.

For some reason, Mobil 1 Extended Performance oil does not meet all of the
ILSAC GF-4 standards. Could be that it does not meet the stricter fuel
economy tests, or has too much phosphorus which can shorten the life of
catalytic converters. It does meet the engine wear tests.


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2005, 03:16 PM   #3 (permalink)
y_p_w
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View y_p_w's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?



Mark A wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Car Guy" <ac222@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sI-dnbWpSbT8AOHfRVn-gw@rogers.com...
>[color=green]
>>I have been reading that there is a ILSAC GF-4 based oils coming out and
>>wanted to know the difference between this and GF-3? Which is better?
>>
>>I currently use Mobil 1 5W30 year round in my cars and wanted to know if
>>this GF-4 is going to make Mobil 1 better or worse.
>>
>>Thanks[/color]
>
> Mobil 1 5W-30 meets the standards for ILSAC GF-4 (API Certified -
> Starburst). I suspect that no change in the formula was necessary to meet
> the new standard (but don't know for sure).[/color]

Basically all one needs for the current starburst standard (now GF-4)
is to meet the current API standard along with its corresponding
"Energy Conserving" standard.
[color=blue]
> Mobil Clean 7500 (synthetic blend) and Mobil Clean 5000 (conventional oil)
> also meet the new standard.[/color]

I think you'll find as oils are relabelled for API SM, they'll nearly
all meet the EC standard and thus GF-4. There might be a few
exceptions, including some "European Formula" 0W-30 or 5W-30 oils
that are designed to be on the heavy side of 30 weight, and won't
meet the energy conserving standard. Pennzoil actually markets
two different 5W-30 oils in their "Pennzoil Platinum" series.
[color=blue]
> For some reason, Mobil 1 Extended Performance oil does not meet all of the
> ILSAC GF-4 standards. Could be that it does not meet the stricter fuel
> economy tests, or has too much phosphorus which can shorten the life of
> catalytic converters. It does meet the engine wear tests.[/color]

You've got that one. They have extra "SuperSyn" which is what Mobil
calls a "high viscosity index polyalphaolefin". Basically what it
does is serve as a base oil that also increases the viscosity
index. I've heard using it also eliminates the need for other
VI improvers in weights that previously needed it (or they now need
less VI improver). So what you end up with is a slightly thicker oil
(closer to the max for the viscosity range) at operating temps, which
reduces fuel economy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2005, 06:07 PM   #4 (permalink)
Huw
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View Huw's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?


"Car Guy" <ac222@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sI-dnbWpSbT8AOHfRVn-gw@rogers.com...[color=blue]
>I have been reading that there is a ILSAC GF-4 based oils coming out and
>wanted to know the difference between this and GF-3? Which is better?
>
> I currently use Mobil 1 5W30 year round in my cars and wanted to know if
> this GF-4 is going to make Mobil 1 better or worse.
>
> Thanks
>[/color]

ILSAC GF4 is only met by API latest standard energy conserving grades. There
is a misapprehension that some European specification oils that meet higher
performance standards will somehow meet and [easily exceed] the API standard
but somehow fail the 'energy conserving' starburst. In fact it is probable
that the only reason that the starburst is not awarded is that the sales
volume of these oils would not warrant the accreditation and licensing fees
levied. In Europe where these oils are commonplace the starburst and ILSAC
standard is not used. Instead the owner is trusted to use appropriate
quality and viscosity for his application and to be intelligent enough to
know that a thin oil will be more fuel efficient.
Effectively any oil with the required API rating and a 'w' rating of 5 or
lower and a hot viscosity of 30 or lower would qualify for the starburst if
a wad of money changed hands.

Huw


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 09:02 AM   #5 (permalink)
C. E. White
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View C. E. White's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?



Huw wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "Car Guy" <ac222@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sI-dnbWpSbT8AOHfRVn-gw@rogers.com...[color=green]
> >I have been reading that there is a ILSAC GF-4 based oils coming out and
> >wanted to know the difference between this and GF-3? Which is better?
> >
> > I currently use Mobil 1 5W30 year round in my cars and wanted to know if
> > this GF-4 is going to make Mobil 1 better or worse.
> >
> > Thanks
> >[/color]
>
> ILSAC GF4 is only met by API latest standard energy conserving grades. There
> is a misapprehension that some European specification oils that meet higher
> performance standards will somehow meet and [easily exceed] the API standard
> but somehow fail the 'energy conserving' starburst. In fact it is probable
> that the only reason that the starburst is not awarded is that the sales
> volume of these oils would not warrant the accreditation and licensing fees
> levied. In Europe where these oils are commonplace the starburst and ILSAC
> standard is not used. Instead the owner is trusted to use appropriate
> quality and viscosity for his application and to be intelligent enough to
> know that a thin oil will be more fuel efficient.
> Effectively any oil with the required API rating and a 'w' rating of 5 or
> lower and a hot viscosity of 30 or lower would qualify for the starburst if
> a wad of money changed hands.[/color]

I don't know about the "wad of money" part. According to
[url]http://api-ep.api.org/filelibrary/FormCGF4SM0105.pdf[/url] the
fees are as follows:

"6. Licensee agrees to pay to API an annual minimum royalty
fee [eight hundred fifty dollars ($850) for API members; one
thousand fifty dollars ($1,050) for non-members] plus
$0.0015 per gallon of licensed motor oil after the first
million gallons of production. This minimum royalty may be
revised annually if deemed necessary by API to cover the
costs of administration and enforcement of the program.
Licensee agrees to submit the necessary annual volume of
sales data and the minimum royalty fee to API within the
time frame specified by API. All fees are payable in U.S.
dollars."

Seem pretty low to me.

I think you are wrong about the "a 'w' rating of 5 or lower
and a hot viscosity of 30 or lower would qualify for the
starburst" part. To get the starburst symbol the oil has to
show an increase in fuel economy compard to a 5W-30
synthetic reference oil. From
[url]http://www.pzlqs.com/Tech/Bulletin//DomesticMarketing/General/pdf/g29a.pdf[/url]
-

"Oils tested are now compared to an SAE 5W-30 synthetic
reference oil instead of the SAE 20W-30 mineral reference
oil used under the old program. Engine oils must achieve
1.1% better fuel economy for SAE 5W-30 motor oils and 0.5%
better fuel economy for SAE 10W-30 and SAE 10W-40 motor
oils."

Regards,

Ed White
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 09:26 AM   #6 (permalink)
Huw
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View Huw's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?


"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:427F6D8D.1ACE5CC3@nospam.com...[color=blue]
>
>
> "Oils tested are now compared to an SAE 5W-30 synthetic
> reference oil instead of the SAE 20W-30 mineral reference
> oil used under the old program. Engine oils must achieve
> 1.1% better fuel economy for SAE 5W-30 motor oils and 0.5%
> better fuel economy for SAE 10W-30 and SAE 10W-40 motor
> oils."
>[/color]

There is some confusion here because neither 10w/30 nor 10w/40 would qualify
as 'energy conserving' and the 10w/40 would most certainly not achieve
better fuel efficiency than the reference 5w/30 in any conditions.

Huw


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 11:27 AM   #7 (permalink)
C. E. White
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View C. E. White's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?



Huw wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:427F6D8D.1ACE5CC3@nospam.com...[color=green]
> >
> >
> > "Oils tested are now compared to an SAE 5W-30 synthetic
> > reference oil instead of the SAE 20W-30 mineral reference
> > oil used under the old program. Engine oils must achieve
> > 1.1% better fuel economy for SAE 5W-30 motor oils and 0.5%
> > better fuel economy for SAE 10W-30 and SAE 10W-40 motor
> > oils."
> >[/color]
>
> There is some confusion here because neither 10w/30 nor 10w/40 would qualify
> as 'energy conserving' and the 10w/40 would most certainly not achieve
> better fuel efficiency than the reference 5w/30 in any conditions.
>
> Huw[/color]

Valvoline claims their 10W-30 Synthetic Blend meets the
Energy Conserving requirements
([url]http://www.valvoline.com/pages/products/product_detail.asp?product=4&print=true[/url])
-

"SAE 10w30: Is the leading consumer grade. Exceeds all car,
light truck, van or sport utility manufacturer's warranty
requirements for the protection of gasoline, and
turbocharged engines where an API SL, SJ, or CF oil is
recommended. Exceeds European ACEA A1 and all requirements
of ILSAC GF-3 for API Gasoline Engine Oils and meets Energy
Conserving Standards."

Mobil also claims their drive clean 10W-30 meets the Energy
COnserving standards
([url]http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_Drive_Clean_Plus.asp[/url]).
I am sure there are many other 10W-30 oils that meet this
standard. It seems obvious to me it should not be a problem,
this fuel efficiency is measured once the oil is at
operating temperature, and at this point, 10W-30 and 5W-30
aren't much different. I looked at the API license list, and
most 10W-30 oils are "energy conserving (see
[url]http://eolcs.api.org/FindBrandByViscosity.asp?Viscosity=10W-30[/url],
the ones with the * can be labeled "energy conserving"). You
are right about the 10W-40. I couldn't find anyone
advertising an "energy conserving" 10W-40 motor oil and not
one in the API list was eligible for the "energy conserving"
designation.

I did notice one interesting item in looking throught the
lists - Ford of the US sells only API "SL" 5W20 Motor Oil.
Ford of Canada sells both API "SM" and "SL" motor oil. What
gives? Both are claimed to be ILSAC GF-4.

Regards,

Ed White
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 11:28 AM   #8 (permalink)
y_p_w
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View y_p_w's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?

Huw wrote:[color=blue]
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:427F6D8D.1ACE5CC3@nospam.com...[color=green]
> >
> >
> > "Oils tested are now compared to an SAE 5W-30 synthetic
> > reference oil instead of the SAE 20W-30 mineral reference
> > oil used under the old program. Engine oils must achieve
> > 1.1% better fuel economy for SAE 5W-30 motor oils and 0.5%
> > better fuel economy for SAE 10W-30 and SAE 10W-40 motor
> > oils."
> >[/color]
>
> There is some confusion here because neither 10w/30 nor 10w/40
> would qualify as 'energy conserving' and the 10w/40 would most
> certainly not achieve better fuel efficiency than the reference
> 5w/30 in any conditions.[/color]

In my reading, I've heard that the "reference oil" used is a
PAO-only base oil. My guess is that it probably doesn't
contain much (if any) friction modifiers. I doubt the API
sets the requirements such that they can't be met.

It would make sense that the API would change to a synthetic
"reference oil" because it would reduce variability compared
to the previous mineral reference oils.

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 11:35 AM   #9 (permalink)
Mark A
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View Mark A's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?

>> Effectively any oil with the required API rating and a 'w' rating of 5[color=blue][color=green]
>> or
>> lower and a hot viscosity of 30 or lower would qualify for the starburst
>> if
>> a wad of money changed hands.[/color]
>[/color]
Mobil specifically states that their new Mobil 1 Extended Life oils
(including 5W-30) do not meet the new GF-4 rating, probably because of the
fuel-mileage (they specifically say it does meet the engine wear standards).

The regular Mobil 1 full synthetics, synthetic blends, and conventional oils
do meet the new standards.

So it would not surprising that some of the high performance oils, such as
required in Mercedes vehicles, may not meet GF-4 rating.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with whether the tests were performed or
money changing hands.


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 11:40 AM   #10 (permalink)
Philip
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View Philip's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?

Huw wrote:[color=blue]
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:427F6D8D.1ACE5CC3@nospam.com...[color=green]
>>
>>
>> "Oils tested are now compared to an SAE 5W-30 synthetic
>> reference oil instead of the SAE 20W-30 mineral reference
>> oil used under the old program. Engine oils must achieve
>> 1.1% better fuel economy for SAE 5W-30 motor oils and 0.5%
>> better fuel economy for SAE 10W-30 and SAE 10W-40 motor
>> oils."
>>[/color]
>
> There is some confusion here because neither 10w/30 nor 10w/40 would
> qualify as 'energy conserving' and the 10w/40 would most certainly
> not achieve better fuel efficiency than the reference 5w/30 in any
> conditions.
> Huw[/color]

Well then, what am I to make of this bottle of Mobi1 10w-30 in my hand that
has the "Energy Conserving" starburst on the front of the bottle and in the
API circle? Hmmm?

-Philip


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 11:43 AM   #11 (permalink)
Mark A
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View Mark A's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?

> Well then, what am I to make of this bottle of Mobi1 10w-30 in my hand[color=blue]
> that has the "Energy Conserving" starburst on the front of the bottle and
> in the API circle? Hmmm?
>
> -Philip[/color]
The bottle is correct, and Huw is wrong.


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 01:12 PM   #12 (permalink)
Huw
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View Huw's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?


"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:goMfe.82$bm5.2@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Huw wrote:[color=green]
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:427F6D8D.1ACE5CC3@nospam.com...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>
>>> "Oils tested are now compared to an SAE 5W-30 synthetic
>>> reference oil instead of the SAE 20W-30 mineral reference
>>> oil used under the old program. Engine oils must achieve
>>> 1.1% better fuel economy for SAE 5W-30 motor oils and 0.5%
>>> better fuel economy for SAE 10W-30 and SAE 10W-40 motor
>>> oils."
>>>[/color]
>>
>> There is some confusion here because neither 10w/30 nor 10w/40 would
>> qualify as 'energy conserving' and the 10w/40 would most certainly
>> not achieve better fuel efficiency than the reference 5w/30 in any
>> conditions.
>> Huw[/color]
>
> Well then, what am I to make of this bottle of Mobi1 10w-30 in my hand
> that has the "Energy Conserving" starburst on the front of the bottle and
> in the API circle? Hmmm?
>
> -Philip
>[/color]

Then the lower 'w' rating to qualify must be 10w not 5w.
This is not an issue in Europe because consumers have enough sense to
realise that lighter viscosity oils are more fuel efficient without a
starburst to tell them. After all, economy is a rather higher priority this
side of the pond.

Huw


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 01:29 PM   #13 (permalink)
Philip
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View Philip's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?

Mark A wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> Well then, what am I to make of this bottle of Mobi1 10w-30 in my
>> hand that has the "Energy Conserving" starburst on the front of the
>> bottle and in the API circle? Hmmm?
>>
>> -Philip[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> The bottle is correct, and Huw is wrong.[/color]

Huw is not "wrong" .... Huw is incorrect on this particular point. ;^) I
should also mention that the Mobil1 bottle in my hot little hand is NOT the
Extended Performance formula Mobil1.

-Philip




  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 01:35 PM   #14 (permalink)
Mark A
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View Mark A's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?

>> The bottle is correct, and Huw is wrong.[color=blue]
>
> Huw is not "wrong" .... Huw is incorrect on this particular point. ;^)
> I should also mention that the Mobil1 bottle in my hot little hand is NOT
> the Extended Performance formula Mobil1.
>
> -Philip
>[/color]
Of course he is wrong on that particular point. I didn't say he is wrong
about everything. But he is wrong about the "labeled" viscosity being the
only determination of an energy-saving formula. The proof is in the testing
and not the labeling.


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 02:12 PM   #15 (permalink)
Huw
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
View Huw's Photo Gallery
Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?


"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:GImdnUPmiYbKMOLfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> The bottle is correct, and Huw is wrong.[/color]
>>
>> Huw is not "wrong" .... Huw is incorrect on this particular point. ;^) I
>> should also mention that the Mobil1 bottle in my hot little hand is NOT
>> the Extended Performance formula Mobil1.
>>
>> -Philip
>>[/color]
> Of course he is wrong on that particular point. I didn't say he is wrong
> about everything. But he is wrong about the "labeled" viscosity being the
> only determination of an energy-saving formula. The proof is in the
> testing and not the labeling.
>[/color]

There are official tests but oil blenders self certify and approve their
oils while remitting a license fee. The reference oil is just to pull the
wool over your eyes because I do not know of any oil that meets appropriate
current API rating combined with the appropriate viscosity rating that would
not automatically qualify. The combined SAE and API ratings are the key
because the latest API standards force the use of better base oils.

Huw


  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Toyota Nation Forum : Toyota Car and Truck Forums > Toyota USENET Discussion Groups > alt.autos.toyota > alt.autos.toyota.camry

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is Off
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:41 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.
ToyotaNation.com is an independent Toyota/Lexus enthusiast website. ToyotaNation.com is not sponsored by or in any way affiliated with Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. The Toyota, Lexus and Scion names and logos are trademarks owned by Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.