Accel Oil - API SF - On the shelf at Wally World

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: bigblumer
Also, what drives a company to produce an SF oil this day in age? Did they find a load of SF oil drums sitting in a warehouse and say, "Why don't we bottle it? What have we got to loose?"


In a nutshell - profit. There are additive packages "designed" to meet SF (the engine tests are no longer available to test for SF, but the additive packages are designed based on bench tests, experience, and expertise to meet the requirements). The treat rate for the SF packages is very low and, when blended with a Group I base oil, makes for a cheap blend. Cheap blends open the opportunity for more profit.

The USA car population requiring SF motor oils is extremely small, that is, cars built before 1989, 23 years ago. There may be a use in motorcycles as noted above, but these SF oils are not being marketed as motorcycle oils, but rather as car motor oils. In my personal opinion they are being directed at those folks who buy on price, either not understanding how to read an oil label or believing all oils are equal. In other words, exploiting ignorance (or innocence) for profit.

I have no problem with marketers who put a clear warning on the label that the oil should not be used in engines built after 1988, as recommended in SAE J183, but in my opinion those that simply say "check your owner's manual for the proper API service" are being deceptive and unethical. The Accel oil label you posted does give a clear warning on the front label, but many others do not.

Tom NJ

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: bigblumer
While there are cars still on the road that can use this oil, i still see no purpose to this oil being on the shelf, other than the hopes that somebody that is only concerned about price and knows absolutely nothing about oil will buy it.


There is a purpose to it, though, and a market for it. For my old F-150, which would be better off with extra ZDDP, this would be a great oil. You mention boutique oils. Should I go for Royal Purple at roughly $11 a quart or should I go for Joe Gibbs at $25 a quart? Thanks, but I'll stick to HDEO or something like the Accel oil. At least Accel is pricing it relatively fairly - an old school additive package at a discount price. Ever notice all the HDEO at Walmart? Do you think it's bought only by farmers, truckers, and diesel owners?

Additionally, did you notice that many HM oils list no API rating at all? What are your thoughts on QS HM and Pennzoil HM? They have no API or ILSAC rating. Why are they on the shelf with modern SN/GF-5 oils? Quaker State's Defy is out in the States and will be coming up here shortly (if we're lucky). It's in the same boat. Why is it on the market? It's got no donut nor starburst, yet it's likely to be right next to QSAD and QSUD, both of which are API/ILSAC oils. What if someone mistakenly puts these products into their modern engines and causes them to explode all over the place?

Originally Posted By: bigblumer
I do have a serious question for BITOG. Does the API rating only apply to multi-grade oils? A previous poster alluded to the fact that an SF oil on the market isn't that strange because they still make single-grade oil. (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the impression I got.) Aren't single grande oils like SAE30 still certified by API? I believe you can get Pennzoil SAE30 SN, (which I would rather run in my lawn mower than 5w30 SF).


Sure, straight grades can be rated API SN, although you won't see them ILSAC rated. I brought up straight oils because you'll occasionally see some with rather dated specifications from the big oil companies. The same applies with certain HDEOs.

The other reason I brought them up is that, while they can have the latest API specification, they are totally unsuitable for a new vehicle, at least from a warranty perspective. Yet, they are in the same place as SN/GF-5 5w-30.

The real issue is that there is a market for a lot of different oil specifications, as opposed to just different brands. Accel marketing an appropriately labelled SF rated oil is no different than the myriad of non-API high mileage oils, modern straight weights, or dual rated oils. None of these are appropriate for a new gasoline vehicle under warranty. But, there are plenty of applications for which they are suitable or preferable.

I highly doubt that Warren is distributing this product with the hopes that someone will put it in their engine without knowing it doesn't belong. For one, Warren sells modern oils. Secondly, the thing is labelled appropriately. Beyond that, what else can we ask for? There is a point where the seller's responsibility to disclose what they're selling ends, and the buyer's responsibility to know what they actually need begins.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Garak
There is a purpose to it, though, and a market for it. For my old F-150, which would be better off with extra ZDDP, this would be a great oil.


I would agree with you if in fact these SF oils actually had extra ZDDP, and were clearly labeled as being for engines built before 1989. PQIA did not test the Accel SF oil, but the six SF oils that PQIA did test had phosphorus levels of 378 to 764 ppm, equal to or less than the ZDDP in SM/SN oils. They were all labeled with the wonderful benefits the oil offers your engine, but not one of them gave any clue that the oil was considered unsuitable for engines built in the last 23 years. In my opinion that is deceptive. It was refreshing to see that the Accel stated it clearly right on the front label.

I agree there is a place for these oils, just do it right.

Tom NJ

Tom NJ

 

[bigblumer]

Originally Posted By: Garak
There is a point where the seller's responsibility to disclose what they're selling ends, and the buyer's responsibility to know what they actually need begins.

Now there is a statement I can not argue with. If somebody put an SF oil into something that required a more modern oil, and it fouled their engine, I would not blame the manufacturer. Not Accel is guaranteed to destroy a modern engine.

And I also agree that Warren is being more forthcoming with what is in the bottle than our friends at Star City. They certainly are not hiding the fact that its an SF rated oil.

Here is another serious question regarding High Mileage oils. Are they not API certified because of their add-packs and/or viscosity, or do the manufacturers not get them certified because they are marketed towards automobiles that are out of warranty, and it really doesn't matter anyway? I have never used them. My Sable made it a long way on a steady diet of VWB.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
I would agree with you if in fact these SF oils actually had extra ZDDP, and were clearly labeled as being for engines built before 1989. PQIA did not test the Accel SF oil, but the six SF oils that PQIA did test had phosphorus levels of 378 to 764 ppm, equal to or less than the ZDDP in SM/SN oils.


Obviously, I have no evidence, but considering the source of the Accel oil, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. I suspect they have a target market in mind, given the obsolete API specification, fairly obsolete grade, and the clear label on the front. I would guess that target market is for vintage vehicles, rather than trying to be the cheapest oil on the shelf or to find space on the dollar store shelf. Heck, I don't think that Defy or other HM oils that lack the Starburst/Donut make much of a disclaimer.

The ones that the PQIA tested were certainly abysmal. Personally, I'd run an SN/GF-5 in my truck before running an oil of shady origins. Really, I'm just happy when a choice is offered. Most people don't need Accel 10w-40 with an obsolete API specification. My old F-150 doesn't need the latest SN/GF-5 oils, though, either. Nor does it need an oil change where the oil costs more than a cam and lifter replacement. That's why I'm glad Accel has done it right. Assuming it is a quality oil and is basically what it says it is, that's the type of company with which I want to do business. Offer the appropriate oil, label it appropriately, and price it accordingly.

Originally Posted By: bigblumer
Now there is a statement I can not argue with. If somebody put an SF oil into something that required a more modern oil, and it fouled their engine, I would not blame the manufacturer. Not Accel is guaranteed to destroy a modern engine.


Quite true. I do have an issue with deliberately misleading labels trying to imitate API trademarks. However, just about every car manual I've read in the past twenty plus years has had pictures of the API certification marks. API and ILSAC requirements in car manuals are absolutely nothing new. While the manuals may occasionally be filled with legalese, it's not that complex. They specify one or more viscosities, make mention of the current API and perhaps even the ILSAC specification, and show pictures of the Donut and Starburst. Some mention another spec, like a Chrysler or Ford one, or a dexos specification.

Originally Posted By: bigblumer
Here is another serious question regarding High Mileage oils. Are they not API certified because of their add-packs and/or viscosity, or do the manufacturers not get them certified because they are marketed towards automobiles that are out of warranty, and it really doesn't matter anyway?


It's probably a mix of both. Some HM oils are certified to both API and ILSAC. Some are just API. Some have no certifications. The viscosities wouldn't be an issue for API certification, though they could affect ILSAC certification, since only 30 and 20 grades are so certified. The additive packages, definitely, could be an issue, if there's too much ZDDP, for instance.

And, for those out of warranty, you're right, it really doesn't matter. If I trust that PYB 5w-30 certified as SN/GF-5 is good for my G37, I'm not going to turn around and think that Pennzoil HM is garbage oil just because it's not certified. It's good oil - just not ideal for under warranty.

Valvoline MaxLife, I believe, has both API and ILSAC certifications. I've used it with good results in the old F-150 when it was leaking like a sieve. That's another reason I like things like the Accel oil, or a decent HM, or even a lighter HDEO if it can be found. If I want higher ZDDP, I don't particularly want to have to go to a 15w-40 or a 20w-50 and then have to worry about changing the oil with the seasons. The truck could run 5w-30 or 10w-30 when new, and there's no reason it shouldn't be able to do so now, and I don't want to spend an astronomical amount of money per litre, either.

 

[Towncivilian]

I saw API SN rated 10W-30 Accel for $2.57/qt at my local WalMart, tucked into the corner of the oil wall. ST oils sell for $2.67/qt. There was also ND30 and some other grade of API SF rated oil, both $2.57.

 

[Garak]

Yes, on the distributor's website, I noticed there are other grades and API levels as well.

 

[texasmudder]

No VOA on Accel 10w40???
I expected far more interest, in what I think may be a great oil at a low price.
Being made by WPP it's likely boosted in other areas too, not just ZINC.
If anyone has further information, or a VOA posted somewhere please let me know.

Thanks

 

[supercity]

Even the majors sell older oil in other countries, because it is affordable.

Havoline SF 20w40

That oil will meet the specifications of my 1992 Mitsubishi and there would be a number of them around.