Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
10 hours ago, SierraStorm21 said:

Regarding Amsoil, it does meet Dexos R according to their website. So I'm not sure where you got that. There's quite a few guys that use it on the Camaro and Vette forums as well so I have zero hesitation in using it in my truck. 

Oops my bad. I must have mis-read something. Thanks for the correction. 

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, SierraStorm21 said:

Regarding Amsoil, it does meet Dexos R according to their website. So I'm not sure where you got that. There's quite a few guys that use it on the Camaro and Vette forums as well so I have zero hesitation in using it in my truck

DOUBLE POST, please delete. 

Edited by MrLeadFoot
Posted
11 hours ago, MrLeadFoot said:

Thanks for the Amazon link. That's actually cheaper than the Amsoil stuff, and the Amsoil doesn't meet the Dexos R designation, either. The only problem with the Mobil 1 on Amazon is that they sell 6 qts. at a time, when we need 8 qts.

AMSOIL's Signature Series 0w-40 meets/exceeds the dexos specification.  I have customers that use it and like it.  They just order a case of gallons, (4 gallons in a case), and they are good for two oil changes. No messing with 8 qt bottles.

AMSOIL warranty covers any issues that might arise if their product was not in specification.  Now the issue with GM'a 6.2 is a manufacturing issue. No oil can fix a faulty part.  The move to 0w-40 in my opinion is to prolong the disaster that will eventually happen. So as long as you use 0w-40 as per GM because of the recall and an issue arises it should still be covered by GM within their warranty guidelines.

https://www.amsoil.com/p/amsoil-signature-series-0w-40-100-synthetic-motor-oil-azf/?zo=521390

  • Thanks 1
Posted

The 0W40 is new Dex OS R spec in SuperCar oil and their website states all grades of 0W40 meet Dex OS R. 0W20 and other grades were for the old Dexos 1 spec. Which one does Amsoil meet?

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, GETGONE said:

The 0W40 is new Dex OS R spec in SuperCar oil and their website states all grades of 0W40 meet Dex OS R. 0W20 and other grades were for the old Dexos 1 spec.

Not sure if you have a typo in your post or not, but where did you read that ALL of their 0w40 oils meet the R spec? While that would sure make it less confusing, this page on the Mobil 1 site shows that not all 0w40 meet that spec. 

 

https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants/for-personal-vehicles/our-products/motor-oils/mobil-0w-40-viscosity-oils#f:@marketpagesearchfacets=[0W-40]

Edited by MrLeadFoot
Posted
2 hours ago, MrLeadFoot said:

Not sure if you have a typo in your post or not, but where did you read that ALL of their 0w40 oils meet the R spec? While that would sure make it less confusing, this page on the Mobil 1 site shows that not all 0w40 meet that spec. 

 

https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants/for-personal-vehicles/our-products/motor-oils/mobil-0w-40-viscosity-oils#f:@marketpagesearchfacets=[0W-40]

Gotta go to the right oil page. You're referencing the wrong stuff

 

https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants/for-personal-vehicles/our-products/products/mobil-1-supercar-0w-40

Click on Product Data Sheets (PDS) Snip from that

image.thumb.png.f93d01aede5b3c27a8bd8dd73655a2af.png

Posted
12 hours ago, GETGONE said:

The 0W40 is new Dex OS R spec in SuperCar oil and their website states all grades of 0W40 meet Dex OS R. 0W20 and other grades were for the old Dexos 1 spec. Which one does Amsoil meet?

All of them for anyone willing to find it on their product page....or do even a basic Google search

image.png.9df0f5dbc5ab36c25cefc02baebefd0d.png

Posted
43 minutes ago, SierraStorm21 said:

Gotta go to the right oil page. You're referencing the wrong stuff

 

https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants/for-personal-vehicles/our-products/products/mobil-1-supercar-0w-40

Click on Product Data Sheets (PDS) Snip from that

image.thumb.png.f93d01aede5b3c27a8bd8dd73655a2af.png

If you read GetGone's post again, he said " their website states all grades of 0W40 meet Dex OS R", which goes against what I found.

 

You are pointing to the Supercar formula which, of course, does meet the DEXOS R spec. If all other formulas in 0w40 do indeed meet the DEXOS R spec, I want to know, because if that's true, it makes it so much easier to source locally. On the other hand, if they do NOT ALL meet that spec, someone could get the wrong oil, so just trying to get clarity on what GetGone found (unless it was simply a typo, which happens). 😉  

Posted
5 hours ago, MrLeadFoot said:

If you read GetGone's post again, he said " their website states all grades of 0W40 meet Dex OS R", which goes against what I found.

 

You are pointing to the Supercar formula which, of course, does meet the DEXOS R spec. If all other formulas in 0w40 do indeed meet the DEXOS R spec, I want to know, because if that's true, it makes it so much easier to source locally. On the other hand, if they do NOT ALL meet that spec, someone could get the wrong oil, so just trying to get clarity on what GetGone found (unless it was simply a typo, which happens). 😉  

 

Why is it you can NEVER read ANYTHING I post correctly? This chart shows ALL Mobil 1 brand name 0W40's as being Dexos R spec. Supercar, of course, but ALSO FS(Full Synthetic), ESP X4 0W40(which is the branding on the European formula), and straight Mobil 1.  

 

image.thumb.png.8f7c02de6428986c6a1413ec821cd406.png

Posted
6 hours ago, SierraStorm21 said:

All of them for anyone willing to find it on their product page....or do even a basic Google search

image.png.9df0f5dbc5ab36c25cefc02baebefd0d.png

That ONLY applies to their SIGNATURE Series 0W40 oil. The OE and European Amsoil formulas DO NOT meet those specifications PER THE DATA SHEETS.

 

Amsoil Signature Series 0W40: 0W-40 (AZF): API SP, SN PLUS, SN…; Chrysler MS-A0921, MS-12633, MS-10725,
MS-10850; Nissan GT-R; GM dexos R

 

Amsoil European 0W40: 0W-40 (EFO): API SN, SM…; ACEA A3/B3, A3/B4; BMW LL-01; MB 229.1, 229.3, 229.5; Porsche A40; Renault 0700, 0710; VW 502.00, 505.00

 

Amsoil OE 0W40: 0W-40 (OEG): API SP, SN PLUS, SM

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, GETGONE said:

 

Why is it you can NEVER read ANYTHING I post correctly? This chart shows ALL Mobil 1 brand name 0W40's as being Dexos R spec. Supercar, of course, but ALSO FS(Full Synthetic), ESP X4 0W40(which is the branding on the European formula), and straight Mobil 1.  

 

image.thumb.png.8f7c02de6428986c6a1413ec821cd406.png

 

3 hours ago, GETGONE said:

 

This is literally what you wrote:

 

"The 0W40 is new Dex OS R spec in SuperCar oil and their website states all grades of 0W40 meet Dex OS R." 

 

I had previously come across information on their site that showed not all their 0w40 weights are Dexos R, so I respectfully asked you for clarity, but you didn't respond. I was not arguing with you. In fact, I even said in a later post that if what you found was true, and all their 0w40 weight were indeed Dexos R, it would be easier to source oil for our trucks locally. But, after I mentioned your quote to someone else, you jump in screaming and yelling? Why are you so always so defensive, and antagonistic? Are you ok? Feel free to ignore my posts. Sheesh. 

Edited by MrLeadFoot
Posted

I posted the website with the information SHOWING ALL versions of 0W40 ARE INDEED Dexos R spec approved. You STILL doubted it.

Posted
1 hour ago, newdude said:

There are 4 licensed Dexos R spec oils in 0w-40 flavor.

 

The Dexos licensing site - dexos®R | GM

 

Mobil 1 Supercar, Mobil 1 FS, Mobil 1 ESP x4 and Mobil 1.

Which is exactly what I posted and linked from Mobil 1's site. They also list 5W50 weight in SuperCar, which is new from when I had last looked at it.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, GETGONE said:

I posted the website with the information SHOWING ALL versions of 0W40 ARE INDEED Dexos R spec approved. You STILL doubted it.

Show me where I doubted you. I merely asked for clarification because I came across something earlier where the European formula did not say it met the DEXOS R spec. In either case, thank you for posting that supporting chart, in the end, confirming what you said earlier.

 

You might want to go get checked out, because your tendency to fly off the handle so quickly is really not good for your health.

Edited by MrLeadFoot

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,758
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Randy Ginoza
    Newest Member
    Randy Ginoza
    Joined
  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,993 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
    • Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
    • Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...