| [GMCnet] Synthetic oil. Just some thoughts [message #282713] |
Tue, 21 July 2015 16:27  |
fbhtxak
Messages: 191
Registered: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kerry,
"At market" = the lowest price for oils bearing the same API "donut" as
nationally/internationally branded oils.
The difference in price is due mainly to the latter's cost of promoting and
distinguishing themselves from their competition and "what the market will
bear". Some sell the same product to large retailers but privately labeled.
Correct - the API spec is the most important factor in my selection process
- not brand.
The most recent (2010) API Service Classification is SN but SJ, SL and SM
are still in production. I prefer SN 10W40 for my "403"(GMCMh) and
"454"(Airstream) engines as it is the most technologically advanced (but I
do not pay a premium price for it relative to the others).
The SN spec was effective in 2010 and is backwards compatible for
"conventional" automotive engines (including "old technology/flat tappet"
engines). I should have emphasized "conventional" in my earlier comments on
this subject as my XOM engineering sources did so. John Lebetski's note
below properly clarifies that for unconventional high revving/high output
engines.
Acknowledging Rob Mueller's comment below: while there is no documented
evidence that spiking current API spec oils with moly and ZDDP increases
service life for "conventional" engines, there is no apparent downside to
doing that (except for the extremes on ZDDP that John noted).
A couple of informative links on engine oils:
. API Classification for Passenger Car Engine Oil:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/apiserviceclass.htm
Note that the API Service Classification was SE during the time GMCMHs were
produced - now long obsolete.
. Knowing what Oils Not to Use:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/devilsindisguise.htm
Fred
Fred B. Hudspeth
1978 Royale - Tyler, TX
1982 Airstream Excella 28' Mh - Cooper Landing, Alaska
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 05:59:56 -0600
From: Kerry Pinkerton
To: gmclist@list.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Synthetic oil. Just some thoughts
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
fbhtxak wrote on Mon, 20 July 2015 13:45
> Like Bob de Kruyff, I am also a proponent of buying current API-spec
engine oils "at market"(including "house brands"),...
Fred, what does 'at market' mean. Are you saying that you worry about the
API spec and don't care about the brand as long as it meets the API-spec
you want. If so, what API spec do YOU prefer?
--
Kerry Pinkerton
North Alabama
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:18:21 -0600
From: John R. Lebetski
To: gmclist@list.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Synthetic oil. Just some thoughts
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Fred I agree. Paranoia sells product. At first any cam lobe failure was
blamed on low ZDDP when there could be a number of reasons contributing to
the
failure. It's mostly about lifter foot pressures. High RPM muscle car
engines benefit with ZDDP as they run steep cam ramps and strong springs to
stop
float. We do not (or should not) run those valve train styles. Worst you can
do is add too much ZDDP as the phoshoric acid attacks and causes spalling
at about 2000 PPM and above.
--
John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
Source America First
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:17:18 +1000
From: "Robert Mueller"
To:
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Synthetic oil. Just some thoughts
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Fred & John,
Add me to the list.
YES I know I've stated that I add ZDDP and Liqui-Moly but I do that from the
standpoint of "it won't hurt."
Regards,
Rob M.
The Pedantic Mechanic
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Synthetic oil. Just some thoughts [message #282779 is a reply to message #282713] |
Wed, 22 July 2015 08:12  |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Fred,
After reading your email I came to the conclusion that if two oils have the same API "donut" and are the same API Service
Classification would the have the same "chemical" makeup or could one be superior to the other.
It seems to me that if they both were the same both would lubricate your engine the same.
Or was the old ad correct "oils ain't oils."
Regards,
Rob M.
The Pedantic Mechanic
-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces@list.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Fred Hudspeth
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 7:27 AM
To: gmclist@list.gmcnet.org
Subject: [GMCnet] Synthetic oil. Just some thoughts
Kerry,
"At market" = the lowest price for oils bearing the same API "donut" as
nationally/internationally branded oils.
The difference in price is due mainly to the latter's cost of promoting and
distinguishing themselves from their competition and "what the market will
bear". Some sell the same product to large retailers but privately labeled.
Correct - the API spec is the most important factor in my selection process
- not brand.
The most recent (2010) API Service Classification is SN but SJ, SL and SM
are still in production. I prefer SN 10W40 for my "403"(GMCMh) and
"454"(Airstream) engines as it is the most technologically advanced (but I
do not pay a premium price for it relative to the others).
The SN spec was effective in 2010 and is backwards compatible for
"conventional" automotive engines (including "old technology/flat tappet"
engines). I should have emphasized "conventional" in my earlier comments on
this subject as my XOM engineering sources did so. John Lebetski's note
below properly clarifies that for unconventional high revving/high output
engines.
Acknowledging Rob Mueller's comment below: while there is no documented
evidence that spiking current API spec oils with moly and ZDDP increases
service life for "conventional" engines, there is no apparent downside to
doing that (except for the extremes on ZDDP that John noted).
A couple of informative links on engine oils:
. API Classification for Passenger Car Engine Oil:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/apiserviceclass.htm
Note that the API Service Classification was SE during the time GMCMHs were
produced - now long obsolete.
. Knowing what Oils Not to Use:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/devilsindisguise.htm
Fred
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Synthetic oil. Just some thoughts [message #282787 is a reply to message #282713] |
Wed, 22 July 2015 09:18 |
JohnL455
Messages: 4447
Registered: October 2006
Location: Woodstock, IL
Karma: 12
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don't almost all oils sold today have the API rating? Only bargain non suitable products would not be rated or denied the rating as failed The current gasoline engine API is SN replacing SM The API STARBURST has to do with fuel savings and is a secondary visual symbol for such oils, much like ENERGY STAR RATED on home appliances. This is usually on lighter weight mulitvis oils with lower pumping parasitic losses steering the consumer towards energy saving purchases. The API classification is in a dual circular logo with service designator, weight, and American Petroleum Institute in the logo circle. So you can have oil with API rating that passes their API scrutiny but not the awarded the energy star. Two SN oils from different companies would NOT have to be idenitical chemically, they would just have to pass or exceed all the API specs for SN. Open to any correction or criticisms.
John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
