Compared to European standards. Exaggeration?
according to graphs API oils are trash
- Thread starter friendly_jacek
- Start date
- Status
I agree with you that API oils are far inferior to European standards. Euro oils are designed for at least 10k mile intervals with the most new cars being around 15k-20k miles. Whereas U.S. oils even synthetics seem to be intended for up to 10k miles with only a few being approved for 15k.
I would not put to much in to graphs.
API stuff only measures quality of oil. It's not exactly fair to compare it to the others.
What do the numbers on the graph represent? Levels of awesomeness?
Comparing oil standards is one thing.
Comparing oils is another.
Neither are very objective nor as straightforward as may be depicted in simplistic graphs. I would say there is some merit to the ACEA system. I would not say in general Euro oils are "better" than API constrained oils.
Comparing oils is another.
Neither are very objective nor as straightforward as may be depicted in simplistic graphs. I would say there is some merit to the ACEA system. I would not say in general Euro oils are "better" than API constrained oils.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
What do the numbers on the graph represent? Levels of awesomeness?
I just blew expensive profiteroles all over my monitor.
What do the numbers on the graph represent? Levels of awesomeness?
I just blew expensive profiteroles all over my monitor.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
I would not put to much in to graphs.
So true. Look how many engines make hundreds of thousands of miles using the "trash API" oils and have NO issues.
What oil company is marketing the graphs?
Bill
I would not put to much in to graphs.
So true. Look how many engines make hundreds of thousands of miles using the "trash API" oils and have NO issues.
What oil company is marketing the graphs?
Bill
That's Lubrizol.
Remember, some brands exceed their listed specs.
Remember, some brands exceed their listed specs.
Horses for courses.
If a manufacturer specs an API SM, I'm sure the engine will do fine on it if it is changed per the manufacturer's recommendation.
If an owner operates a BMW on API SM, as we are able to drive in the US, and he changes it at appropriately shortened intervals, it will probably be fine as well.
If an owner puts some API SM oils in a Euro oil-speced engine, and runs it out to the limits of what the European maker recommends for an OCI, problems may well be found.
Also, as AJ notes, some oils exceed API specs, although they usually also list various maker-specific as well as ACEA specs.
For example, GC is API SL.
It also meets A3, as well as BMW LL-98 and LL-01.
As he really meant, there are oils that meet an API spec, and there are oils that greatly exceed it, although the bottle may give you no more information than the API spec met.
If a manufacturer specs an API SM, I'm sure the engine will do fine on it if it is changed per the manufacturer's recommendation.
If an owner operates a BMW on API SM, as we are able to drive in the US, and he changes it at appropriately shortened intervals, it will probably be fine as well.
If an owner puts some API SM oils in a Euro oil-speced engine, and runs it out to the limits of what the European maker recommends for an OCI, problems may well be found.
Also, as AJ notes, some oils exceed API specs, although they usually also list various maker-specific as well as ACEA specs.
For example, GC is API SL.
It also meets A3, as well as BMW LL-98 and LL-01.
As he really meant, there are oils that meet an API spec, and there are oils that greatly exceed it, although the bottle may give you no more information than the API spec met.
Originally Posted By: TTK
Yeah, I would much rather see the ACEA A1 and A5 on my oil than any API classification. And that's what I buy.
Exactly and Valv Synpower sports "current" year A1/A5 specs while Penz Platinum is like 04 year on the back. U.S. Ultra does not even post ACEA spec (although it may meet but do not understand why they would not brag and post as such).
With that being said I am doing Penz Ultra on my next run as I like the Moly and Boron add.
What the heck is the good of API if it is just geared towards cat protection, emissions and slight mpg increase ? ? ?
Yeah, I would much rather see the ACEA A1 and A5 on my oil than any API classification. And that's what I buy.
Exactly and Valv Synpower sports "current" year A1/A5 specs while Penz Platinum is like 04 year on the back. U.S. Ultra does not even post ACEA spec (although it may meet but do not understand why they would not brag and post as such).
With that being said I am doing Penz Ultra on my next run as I like the Moly and Boron add.
What the heck is the good of API if it is just geared towards cat protection, emissions and slight mpg increase ? ? ?
Originally Posted By: Fallguy
[What the heck is the good of API if it is just geared towards cat protection, emissions and slight mpg increase ? ? ?
Given that API spec oils perform fine wrt wear and drain capability (they do), I'll take some extra "cat protection" over some other theoretical benefits. Catalytic converters can be very expensive in some cars.
jeff
[What the heck is the good of API if it is just geared towards cat protection, emissions and slight mpg increase ? ? ?
Given that API spec oils perform fine wrt wear and drain capability (they do), I'll take some extra "cat protection" over some other theoretical benefits. Catalytic converters can be very expensive in some cars.
jeff
I wouldn't say they're trash. IIRC the ACEA utilizes some API bench tests.
I would say that the ACEA is a little more comprehensive.
I would say that the ACEA is a little more comprehensive.
Last edited:
hi friendly, i for one totally agree with you we are always getting screwed in this country and its black and white euro ois are far better then api oils in this country!!
Europeans have different assumptions about engine maintenance. They expect to do annual (or very long mileage) oil changes at high cost. A far superior oil is needed to handle this. Yes, the oil is better, because it is made at high cost to be better. Try to tell an American who still believes in 3000 mile oil changes that his oil change will cost $200 and watch the eruption. In addition, some of their engines are made to perform at higher levels, and that also requires better, costlier oil--think of the Corvette that requires Mobil 1 (or equal) oil at high cost for the high performance engine.
This is why I like oils that meet A3/B4 specs.
IMO, non-synthetic oils for the past 30 years were trash.
Europe and America are two completely different markets.
The American consumer is typically too cheap and too afraid of the words "full synthetic". So, instead of mandating that ALL fluids are full synthetic, we've been taking baby steps moving the consumer in that direction.
We're also concentrating on making catalytic converters last forever. Obviously, squeezing out every last MPG for all the fluids is also important and is why we've gone thinner more rapidly then other markets. Since many Euro's drive diesels and tiny gas engined vehicles in Europe, MPG is already excellent and not the greatest concern leading to a slower push for 'thin fluids'. They also don't joy ride as much with their $8+/gallon fuel.
We've been addicted to the 3mo/3k interval because it was quick, cheap, and provided some instant gratification. Many vehicles have weened US owners away from the 3mo/3k waste. This is forcing tougher oils and not the cheap poor performing mineral oils of the past.
I can't find my pie chart comparing GF-3 to GF-4.
Penrite has a similar graph here:
GF-2 GF-3 GF-4
We've come a long way in the past decade.
Europe and America are two completely different markets.
The American consumer is typically too cheap and too afraid of the words "full synthetic". So, instead of mandating that ALL fluids are full synthetic, we've been taking baby steps moving the consumer in that direction.
We're also concentrating on making catalytic converters last forever. Obviously, squeezing out every last MPG for all the fluids is also important and is why we've gone thinner more rapidly then other markets. Since many Euro's drive diesels and tiny gas engined vehicles in Europe, MPG is already excellent and not the greatest concern leading to a slower push for 'thin fluids'. They also don't joy ride as much with their $8+/gallon fuel.
We've been addicted to the 3mo/3k interval because it was quick, cheap, and provided some instant gratification. Many vehicles have weened US owners away from the 3mo/3k waste. This is forcing tougher oils and not the cheap poor performing mineral oils of the past.
I can't find my pie chart comparing GF-3 to GF-4.
Penrite has a similar graph here:
GF-2 GF-3 GF-4
We've come a long way in the past decade.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
