I have a drum of engine oil labelled SG 10-30W. According to Castrol I
shouldn't use category SG in engines newer than 1993, I should only use
SL in the newest engines---but then they want me to buy more oil. Does
anyone know if I could use SG in current engines?

Colin

"Colin Blackburn" wrote in message
news:MPG.197ce21a6d613b51989af1@localhost...
I have a drum of engine oil labelled SG 10-30W. According to Castrol I
shouldn't use category SG in engines newer than 1993, I should only use
SL in the newest engines---but then they want me to buy more oil. Does
anyone know if I could use SG in current engines?

Colin

I've had the same dilemma quite recently and asked a mechanic friend to
explain it to me. The story is that newer engines are set-up not use as
much lead additives than older engines and that older types of engine oil
have high lead content. Because of this, the materials that make up the
rods and piston parts don't take to well to high lead content and can
actually rust more quickly.

Well that's how it was explained to me anyway.


---
BigWallop

http://basecuritysystems.no-ip.com

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10/07/03

BigWallop wrote:

I've had the same dilemma quite recently and asked a mechanic friend to
explain it to me. The story is that newer engines are set-up not use as
much lead additives than older engines and that older types of engine oil
have high lead content. Because of this, the materials that make up the
rods and piston parts don't take to well to high lead content and can
actually rust more quickly.

That is truly bizarre. Nothing I've ever read about engine oil,
and no lecture I've ever sat through on the subject has ever
indicated that lead was ever used as an oil additive.

Can anyon else confirm this?

--
Grunff

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:51:59 +0100, Grunff wrote:

That is truly bizarre. Nothing I've ever read about engine oil,
and no lecture I've ever sat through on the subject has ever
indicated that lead was ever used as an oil additive.

That's just BigWallop away with the fairies yet again


SG is fine. It won't last as long, and it's probably made from
recycled oil rather than fresh synthesis, but it's a perfectly good
lubricant.

The problem is that it doesn't meet emissions regs for California,
where type approval (not even the annual inspection) tests a few more
emissions than we usually do here. This is mainly due to unrefined
recycled crap, rather than the SG rating itself. As such, a blanket
ruling is simplest for the oil companies. 10-30W SG must be a few
years old though ? I've only seen it as 20-50W recently, sold for
oil-burners with no rings or valve guides.

In '97 I was looking for SJ rated oils and simply couldn't find them
anywhere. In the end I found one dealer in the whole city who knew
what I was talking about, knew that the S* rating system went beyond
SH and stocked some (Valvoline). Now you can hardly buy anything of
lower grade than SI, unless you go to Wayne's Escort Emporium in
pikeyville.

I wouldn't use it in a turbo though, because of the coking problems.

In article ,
Grunff wrote:
I've had the same dilemma quite recently and asked a mechanic friend
to explain it to me. The story is that newer engines are set-up not
use as much lead additives than older engines and that older types of
engine oil have high lead content. Because of this, the materials
that make up the rods and piston parts don't take to well to high lead
content and can actually rust more quickly.

That is truly bizarre. Nothing I've ever read about engine oil, and no
lecture I've ever sat through on the subject has ever indicated that
lead was ever used as an oil additive.

Can anyon else confirm this?

First I've heard of it too. Also, to the best of my knowledge there's been
no change in piston or bearing material of any consequence.

However, I'd stick to the recommended oil. If it's an old car from when
the oil was current, then perhaps ok. But on a newer car with extended oil
changes it's really not worth the risk - oil is a tiny cost in motoring.

I remember someone posting a URL which explained all the various
classifications of oil. These are not defined by the maker, but by
independent bodies and sometimes also individual car makers. I've got this
one bookmarked under oil, which may explain some things.

http://www.whnet.com/4x4/oil.html

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Andy Dingley wrote:
snip

in pikeyville.

Was that realy necessary? It has already been established that there are
"thieving pikey *******s" on this NG.

Steve R

---
One piece, one button suit, timeless fashion. All made by the same
manufacturer, no designer label, everybody has one.

Essjay001 wrote:

in pikeyville.


Was that realy necessary? It has already been established that there are
"thieving pikey *******s" on this NG.

Maybe not necessary as such, but certainly amusing.

--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:

BigWallop wrote:

I've had the same dilemma quite recently and asked a mechanic friend to
explain it to me. The story is that newer engines are set-up not use as
much lead additives than older engines and that older types of engine oil
have high lead content. Because of this, the materials that make up the
rods and piston parts don't take to well to high lead content and can
actually rust more quickly.


That is truly bizarre. Nothing I've ever read about engine oil, and no
lecture I've ever sat through on the subject has ever indicated that
lead was ever used as an oil additive.

Can anyon else confirm this?


On the contrary. Molybdenum yeas, lead? Never heard of it.

Essjay001 wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
snip

in pikeyville.


Was that realy necessary? It has already been established that there are
"thieving pikey *******s" on this NG.



And in a fllod of gebnerosity and political correctness, IMM is allowing
them planning permission to park trailers in his back garden.


Steve R

---
One piece, one button suit, timeless fashion. All made by the same
manufacturer, no designer label, everybody has one.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:15:41 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:

Some of you may have had a bad time with travellers,

Well not me. By "pikeyville" I was thinking of Kingswood (where you
can barely park a bike, let alone a trailer).

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Essjay001 wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
snip

in pikeyville.


Was that realy necessary? It has already been established that there are
"thieving pikey *******s" on this NG.



And in a fllod of gebnerosity and political correctness, IMM is allowing
them planning permission to park trailers in his back garden.

Correct! How did you know? I'm planting the mines now.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

In article ,
says...

SG is fine. It won't last as long, and it's probably made from
recycled oil rather than fresh synthesis, but it's a perfectly good
lubricant.

The problem is that it doesn't meet emissions regs for California,
where type approval (not even the annual inspection) tests a few more
emissions than we usually do here. This is mainly due to unrefined
recycled crap, rather than the SG rating itself. As such, a blanket
ruling is simplest for the oil companies. 10-30W SG must be a few
years old though ? I've only seen it as 20-50W recently, sold for
oil-burners with no rings or valve guides.

I don't know how old it is. It came with the house! I have various drums
and containers of oil, the SG, some chainsaw oil, some diesel engine
oil. The latter is the only one I know I can use, in the diesel
generators. The chainsaw oil can be used on bicycle chains though
opinion is divided on its usefulness. The previous occupants had older
cars/motorbikes and so they may have used the SG on that though it is in
the generator shed rather than the garage.

In '97 I was looking for SJ rated oils and simply couldn't find them
anywhere. In the end I found one dealer in the whole city who knew
what I was talking about, knew that the S* rating system went beyond
SH and stocked some (Valvoline). Now you can hardly buy anything of
lower grade than SI, unless you go to Wayne's Escort Emporium in
pikeyville.

Now, the one thing I have learnt is that category SI doesn't exist, they
(the SAE) went straight from SH to SJ to avoid any confusion with the SI
of SI units.

I wouldn't use it in a turbo though, because of the coking problems.

Thanks.

Colin

In article ,
Grunff writes:

That is truly bizarre. Nothing I've ever read about engine oil,
and no lecture I've ever sat through on the subject has ever
indicated that lead was ever used as an oil additive.

I have never heard of this. It is quite possible that when leaded
fuels were used, some lead got carried into the oil via blowby.
Perhaps there is some confusion with zinc dialkyldithiophosphate
which is being cut back because it shortens the life of the
catalytic converter. In theory of course, engine oil won't get
into the cat, but there is a degree of two-way transfer between
the hot side and the oily side of an engine. The bigger oil
manufacturers do a service for fleet owners where they analyse
for metals to pinpoint imminent problems with the engine.

John Schmitt


--
If you have nothing to say, or rather, something extremely stupid
and obvious, say it, but in a 'plonking' tone of voice - i.e.
roundly, but hollowly and dogmatically. - Stephen Potter

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:36:25 +0100, Colin Blackburn
wrote:

Now, the one thing I have learnt is that category SI doesn't exist, they
(the SAE) went straight from SH to SJ to avoid any confusion with the SI
of SI units.

That's my point. SH is the best you can make out of dinosaurs. To get
to SJ et al. you need synthetics.

The notion of the SAE worrying about SI is quite bizarre, as it is.