Whats Next-After GF-5/SN
 

Well the next generation of motor oil is in its beginnings & we can begin to get a hint at what they're thinking about here.
EDIT: 4/13/19: New Web Info Page with more GF-6 Info https://www.infineuminsight.com/resources/ilsac-gf-6/

Interesting read, looks like we will have concurrent classes of both HDEO and PCMO...gee that will make things simple.:-X04

If Ford and/or the Japanese majors follow GM's lead with dexos, it wont matter. ILSAC falls apart. The article hinted that OEM's may abandon industry-wide standards, as happened with ATF.

Yup it seems that API let things begin to get out of hand a few years ago by not being responsive enough to industry needs, maybe they didn't know what to do, or how to proceed at the time, or maybe couldn't get everyone to agree on improvements, so now we have a plethora of mfgr lube specifications for blenders to test for, meet & market, all of which costs blenders & ultimately us, more money!!!!

GM chairs the SN/GF-5 board, gets it approved, then comes out soon after, saying its not good enough for their needs, as they want a world wide lube that'll cover All of it's gas & diesel engine bases, puts out the Dexos 1 & 2 spec that it says exceeds SN/GF-5 & thats fine, but it means that most GM owners don't really need an oil that good for the kind of driving their doing, But if they follow their OLM they may be able to squeeze out extra miles on their OCI & make up the extra cost of the oil that way, Maybe without engine sludge, IF GM has done a good job with the OLM design & the blender has done his job with a good recipe lube!!!!

Ford & Chrysler are likely to follow if history repeats itself. In the meantime those of us without the OLM & older engines are left with more expensive lubes to buy & guessing on how long we can run them, or pony up UOA costs to find out how we're doing if we extend OCI's to try & level the additional lube costs out, without risking engine sludge or excessive wear.

I've been changing my vehicles crank case lube twice a year, no matter the mileage, because we now do mostly short trip urban driving, so the oil doesn't get up to full operating temp & thus I've determined we most likely fall into Fords "Severe Service" category. Now that SN/GF-5 lubes have better base number retention, better base oils & better detergents, I may be able to extend my OCI to once a year, which would probably be around 6-7K miles.

Don't have the gonads to do that yet, suppose I'll have to wait for some more UOA's over on BobIsTheOILGUY, or pony up the gold for an UOA on each vehicle to know for sure, but then for less than the cost of the UOA I can just change the oil & filter & know for sure I'm OK!!!! lol

Anyway it'll be interesting to see where the next round of lube specs are going & it seems things are headed toward lower viscosity, longer life lubes.

Some mfgrs are using what they call "lube for life" products, like Fords synthetic differential lube, which it says doesn't need to be changed unless it's dunked, or opened up for repair.

The "lube for life" idea isn't new, back in 55, guys in my HS Votech schools automotive class had a 28 Rolls embassy staff car to restore. When the engine shop looked for the dip stick to check the oil & found none, then tried to open the engine to check it out, they found it sealed.

When they called Rolls about it, they were told no need for an oil dipstick or pan bolts, because a Rolls Royce doesn't use oil!!!!! lol

That puppy was bought in 1954 in MD., by the body shop Instructor & driven to SW Va & the crankcase lube had been in that engine since 1928, almost 30 years & it was still running like a top!!!!! We never did find out for sure what they were using, but it was rumored that it may have been sperm whale oil based lube!!!!???? Anyway, whatever it was, along with the engine build tolerances & engine temp control Rolls used, must have all but eliminated blow by & oxidization, because that engine was still so smooth at idle, that you could balance a quarter on edge & it wouldn't fall over!!!!!

Now maybe we've caught up & "Lube For Life" may not be too far fetched an idea & may finally be within reach of us commoners????!!!! lol

The engine oil for Boeings is in there for life. Oils like Mobil Jet II are 100% ester based. Temperature swings are huge, but the oil is well sealed from the combustion products. Many of those engines are Rolls Royce.

The original ATF, used in the 1930's Oldsmobile Hydramatic, contained sperm whale oil. For obvious reasons, we cant use that resource today. Synthetic esters will have to do.

Bump
 

Industry Strides toward GF-6

More prelminary GF-6 thinking & with Two oils available for spark engines, one backwards compatible, the other recipe not, because of lower hot viscosity figures, is likely to lead to increased uninformed consumer confusion & maybe engine damage on older vehicles, depending on design & use & have the two offerings cost more, as blenders will have to stock, blend, store, package & ship two seperate products, along with retailers having to pony up more inventory money for stock & provide more shelf space for both & all of that doesn't come free for us consumers!!!!

Of course it isn't a done deal yet, but we can see where things are trending!!

I worry more about quick lubes and garages having to stock more different bulk products and making sure the right one goes in. Do it yourself is dying out. Auto parts stores already stock a huge variety of different oils, including obsolete (for cars and trucks) viscosities like 10W-40, so I dont see that as much of an issue. 20W-20 was specified in many owners manuals up to the early 1970's. I dont hear owners of those classics demanding that grade. I think straight 30 is next to go away. The SAE is already debating that.

Today, to service most of the late-model gasoline powered fleet in the USA, a quick lube needs to stock, at a minimum,
0W20 (late Honda and Toyota)
5W20 (most Ford and late Chrysler)
5W30 Dexos I (everything else)

One of the things I was thinking about, is that for example, some Ford engines, like my Rangers 4.0L, aren't to use 20wt lubes, as its oil pump never got upgraded to be able to pump/supply enough volume, of the hot/lower viscosity 5w-20, so we're to continue using 5w-30 engine oil, so it was one of the Excluded engines on the 01 5w-20 oil TSB back spec list.
We all now know what happened to modified flat tappet engines with heavier valve spring loading, or higher lift cams that caused increased spring & cam loading, after ZDDP levels were scaled back for GL-4/SM. So I kinda see a similar problem/confusion happening with the GF-6 engine lubes not being backward compatable with older engines needs, especially with folks that don't keep up with such things!!!!

I would have rather seen Ford go with 5w-30 than 5w-20 myself. Most of the engines would probably wear better to boot. A while back in the V10 forum a guy that worked at the Ohio Ford engine plant said they were testing engines with 5w-40 so that is what he uses in all his Fords from little car I4 to modular.

I figure a lot of the quick lube shops and small shops are just going to stick with their 55 gallon drum of oil (with all the solid additives settled to the bottom) in practically every car that comes in and not care either way. Still some shops doing that in my area.

My 94 Taurus 3.8L was back speced to use 5W-20 way back in 01 with the 5W-20 TSB, but I'm staying with the origionally specified 5W-30, as its been doing just fine on it, for that matter so has the 99 Ranger 4.0L pushrod engine!!!!
Not suggesting that there is anything wrong with using 5W-20 in an engine thats specified to use it, just that I don't feel complled to, "you don't fix what ain't broke", as the old timers used to say to us youngsters!!!!
So now that I'm one of those "old timers", I sometimes find myself saying the same thing!!!! lol

In the 50's & early 60's around here in SW Va, most folks used 20W-20 year round & 30 & 40wt was for oil burners!!!!!

My Dad put over 100K on a 1950 Plymouth flat head six, running Texaco Havoline 20w-20 & a Fram filter (back when they were owned by Bendix), both changed whenever he felt like it, at the Texaco station where he bought gas & parked while working.

BUT he had an almost perfect drive cycle, 3 mile urban warm up...20 mile divided highway 55mph jaunt...3 mile cool down to the work twenty, then repeat for the return trip home 8 hours later.

Back then oil was changed every one thousand miles & you'd be lucky to get 30-40K without an engine rebuild. Guys at the Texaco station were so curious what was making that old Plymouth last & what it looked like inside, one day they pulled a Gomer & took the head off to see what it looked like in there & clean the carbon off the pistions & clean up & grind the valves. It was clean as a whistle on the top end, so back with the head & off came the oil pan....clean as a whistle in there too, so back on with the oil pan, along with a free oil & filter change....& back to head scratching about what was making that ole Plymouth run so good & last so long.
The secret was a good quality engine lube & fuel & an almost perfect Daily drive cycle!!!!!

Both my dad and I have F-250s with the 6.8l his in an 03' mine is an 04'. Both speced 5w-20 from the factory. We both ran 5w-20 for the warrenty period but switched over 5w-30 after the warrenty expired. Neither of us noticed any mpg loss. Ford originally speced 5w-30 in the 6.8l up to 2001. Nothing changed at the engine that would require a change to 5w-20 so I figured 5w-30 is more than fine and I can only stock one weight of oil. My mom has a 4.0l Explorer so before switching to 5w-30 I would have to get that separetley as I change her oil. Thus far I am not seeing a down side to switching to 5w-30.

One problem with SAE viscosity grades it that they dont tell the whole story to the consumer. What is being debated in the API and ILSAC is High Temperature High Shear viscosity, arguably at least as important as ZDDP levels for valvetrain wear. Lower HTHS means less drag as the rings scrape away the oil, but less resistance to being squeezed out between cam lobe and lifter. 2.6 is the HTHS for xW-20, 2.9 for xW-30 and, a bit surprisingly, also 0W-40, 5W-40 and 10W-40. HTHS lower than 2.6 is what is currently being debated for a non-backward compatible GF-6.

^ + 1 on the High Temp High Stress (HTHS) & along with that, the lubes base oil quality, sacrificial extreme pressure barrier lube scarificial coating, that comes into play when our oil film gets pounded out when lifters & rocker arms do their thing, or when the oil film is sheered by the cam, or crank rotating under load, or pistons sliding & that shear, along with heat, tears the oil film on a molecular level, such that its viscosity drops & can't do its thing as well or the lower volatiles boil off & the lubes viscosity goes up, or the oil film oxidizes, gets thicker, leaves deposits, or otherwise stops lubing as well & the underneath barrier lube ad pack has to come into play to prevent metal to metal surface contact & if it can't hold up, we suffer excessive wear!!!!

Lots of things to take into consideration in designing an engine oil recipe to withstand the riggers our engine design, drive cycle & operating conditions put it through.

So the upcoming lower viscosity, lower HTHS value lubes are gonna have to be Way more robust in the quality of the base oil & barrier lube ad pack used, to provide needed shear, pound out & barrier film wear protection, while offering up lower pumping losses, all to get better mpg out of the engine, while not suffering excessive wear, a tall order!!!

Well lets see in our lubes EP barrier film recipe, we've gone from phos/zinc, to moly, to boron, to titanium, or some combination there-of, so I wonder whats next in our lube engineers bag of tricks for us to oooh & ahhh over????

I think what some automakers want to do is change valvetrain dynamics and decrease friction and demands on the oil film. A new Phosphorus retention requirement will allow keeping ZDDP levels where they are but increase cat life.

Yah my 94 Taurus 3.8L & 99 Ranger 4.0L have cam roller lifters which cut a good bit of friction & shear, but don't have valve arm tappet rollers or other refinements, but just that change over the old Merc 3.3L flat tappet lifters, helped a bunch to cut friction losses & oil shear.

Will be interesting to hear how the newer oils hold up in the new direct injection engines, & how new engine mechanical changes & materials improve efficiency, life & the power to weight ratio. Trying to reliably lube the new changes being proposed is going to be a challange & will be interesting to follow.