VetteLog

Thanks!

Gearhead Jim

Actually, that's not correct.
Some other specs for motor oil do regulate the ZDDP you mentioned, but that is true for road-use motor oil in general.

GM4718M is related to high temperature stability of the oil, and has nothing to do with ZDDP.

Google is your friend.

AORoads

That is a very interesting graphic on Ultra, Allen. thanks!

I might also note that the "older", Pennzoil Platinum Full Synthetic on the Pennzoil site says that it, too, exceeds GM's latest oil requirement, Dexos 1. (see: http://www.pennzoil.com/#/motor-oil/pennzoil-platinum)

But based on the facts presented, it could be a boost to the engine to switch to the Pennzoil Ultra Synthetic. It is a little more expensive than the regular Platinum Full Synthetic.

Still, this is good information to have on the new oil. Maybe they'll run a big sale soon!

calemasters

It is my understanding that Pennzoil Platinum full Synthetic and Mobile 1 full synthetic are not truly fully synthetic, but they are allowed to advertise as such. I believe that Pennzoil Ultra GF-5 is truly a fully synthetic oil, thus the extra cost.

AORoads

Hmmm, hmmm, really....ok.

Rule292

So much for the "I wouldn't use Pennzoil in my lawn tractor" quotes...

I'd be more concerned about additive compatibility when switching from the old M1 factory fill to another brand.

The Clevite Kid

All API rated motor oils are tested for compatibility, and will not have any issues with the small (about 1/2 quart) of residual oil remaining after draining.

NORTY

Only a pilot with a "Rising Sun" bandana would use Amsoil in their plane. Real pilots use Aeroshell...

NORTY

NATO demands this compatibility.

NORTY

While you were right, Pennzoil years ago was lousy "barely meets the spec" oil. That is no longer the case. Since Shell Oil bought Pennzoil, they have utilized their expertise in creating a very good oil. So good in fact, that FERARRI uses it as factory fill. Pennzoil ULTRA= Helix ULTRA.

We don't have Helix in North America.

Rogers 07

Sure, the spec has lot of engineering criteria in it, however, from a pure oil protection point of view, any oil that meets GM4718M will NOT protect an older flat tappet (solid or hydraulic) cammed performance engine due to the reduced ZDDP which was reduced in the spec to protect the Cats on new cars, Google has many answers!!

phileaglesfan

There are some manufacturers out there that practically mandate that you use their "blend" of fluids. GM is just saying these are the oils that they tested or maybe they didnt' test anything at all. It is just like Top Tier gas. The first name on the list Quiktrip has the same address as Top Tier gas while some big name brands are not even on the list.

hogsnvettes

If you are interested to learn the difference in Synthetics, please read the following. The base stocks used in the formulations of most if not all other synthetics changed to base III after the Castrol vs Mobil challenge in the late '90s, except for Amsoil. It may come as a surprise to many that that real expensive synthetic motor oil you're using is just re-re-re-refined dinosaur oil. Amsoil as far as I know is the only synthetic on the market today that uses base IV pure synthetic base stocks.

http://www.syntheticsbestoil.com/mobil.htm

denali

Thats what I was about to ask.

hogsnvettes

For those of you with warranty issues:

"The relevant legislation here, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty - Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act of 1975, protects consumers from being wrongfully denied warranty coverage by new car dealers.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act states, in part, in Title 15, United States Code, Section 2302, subdivision (c):
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the [Federal Trade] Commission if —

(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and

(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefore.

Under this federal statute, a manufacturer who issues a warranty on your motor vehicle is prohibited from requiring you to use a service or maintenance item, unless such item is provided, free of charge, under your warranty or unless the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) waives this prohibition against the manufacturer.

Further, under the act, aftermarket equipment that improves performance does not automatically void a vehicle manufacturer's original warranty, unless the warranty clearly states the addition of aftermarket equipment automatically voids your vehicle's warranty, or if it can be proven that the aftermarket device is the direct cause of the failure.

Specifically, the rules and regulations adopted by the FTC to govern the interpretation and enforcement of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 16 - Commercial Practices, Chapter I - Federal Trade Commission, Subchapter G - Rules, Regulations, Statements and Interpretations under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Part 700 - Interpretations under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Contained within these rules and regulations is Section 700.10, which states:
No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, "This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized 'ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine 'ABC' parts," and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.

Under the Magnuson-Moss Act, a dealer must prove, not just vocalize, that aftermarket equipment caused the need for repairs before it can deny warranty coverage. If the dealer cannot prove such a claim — or it proffers a questionable explanation — it is your legal right to demand compliance with the warranty. The Federal Trade Commission administers the Magnuson-Moss Act and monitors compliance with warranty law."

AORoads

While I don't doubt the word of Amsoil, it IS their website and claims. Not to mention the fact that one of the "industry magazines" they quote is Lubricants World, which has gone out of business. There is mention, however, of SAE and API; is there any possibility of getting some corroboration from these two organizations re the statements made by Amsoil's article? I'm not doubting the Castrol vs. Mobil but I'd like to find out more re the other claims.

Gearhead Jim

If there is a major engine repair that might be covered by warranty, the dealer does not get to make the decision. Someone up the line at GM decides. Sometimes, you car gets to sit for a while until a rep can come by to physically look at it. Blackstone Labs previously told me they get oil samples from the car makers, presumably to make warranty decisions.

If GM decides your problem was caused by sub-standard oil or some other non-warranty cause, you are basically screwed. The cost of hiring a lawyer and expert witnesses will quickly exceed the cost of a new engine. Do you feel lucky? The federal government is busy with a lot of other things and isn't going to take up your case unless it's part of a pattern.

The MMA thing has been beaten to death before, the short version is that anything non-spec in your car effectively puts the burden of proof on you if GM wants to be tough.

Gus Gillespie

Why don't you Guys and Girls just follow what the manual states? It's not that difficult. Unless you are too cheap, do what GM tells you to do. If you are that cheap then go out and buy yourself a Ford Mustang or Dodge Viper. There; it's been said!!

Gus Gillespie

<br />Why don't you Guys and Girls just follow what the manual states? It's not that difficult. Unless you are too cheap, do what GM tells you to do. If you are that cheap then go out and buy yourself a Ford Mustang or Dodge Viper. There; it's been said!!

5knives

Why don't you check the date of the last posting before chastising people? Unless you are too "Dizzy"