ACEA vs API oils

[cathy]

Someone was saying API oil test are too easy, using 3.8L v6 engine, while ACEA is more stringent, for longer life, etc.

Should I get only ACEA approved oils to save money even if oil themselves cost more,
even though today's engines last almost forever?

 

[bepperb]

Depends on what you are driving. There is a difference and it wouldn't hurt.

Here is a place so see the differences, with something like API SJ as the baseline (which is a pretty high baseline, IMO).

http://origin-qps.onstreammedia.com/orig...p/pc/index.html

 

[Garak]

Agreed, it depends on what you're driving, and other things, too. Several of the ACEA specifications also include a minimum TBN. If you're doing short, severe service type OCIs (i.e. 5,000 miles and under) on a non-demanding application, generally, most properly certified conventional will work. If one looks to extend by going synthetic, one will note that most synthetics (i.e. look at M1 or PP), even of the SN/GF-5 variety, will have some ACEA specifications.

 

[cathy]

I read ACEA spec is manufacturer self-rated voluntary rating, there is no test to meet,
however in US we have API (&ACEA) oils so that might be better.

 

[Falcon_LS]

Any claims for meeting ACEA performance levels must be backed up by tests performed in accredited laboratories. Tests must be performed in accordance with the European Engine Lubricants Quality Management System. So, yes, there are tests to meet.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: cathy
I read ACEA spec is manufacturer self-rated voluntary rating, there is no test to meet,
however in US we have API (&ACEA) oils so that might be better.


Falcon is right. The ACEA stuff is maybe a tad more self-policed than the API stuff, as you indicate, but in practice, I doubt there's much difference in the administration of the licensing. Someone like Tom NJ could answer better, but I think one needs to actually obtain API/ILSAC licensing, whereas ACEA specifications can be claimed provided the wording on the bottle is correct (recent versions of the ACEA specifications) and that testing was done and passed.

The ACEA specs don't mean a lot for North American vehicles, but they can tell some important things. If an oil that is in a normally resource conserving grade (i.e. 5w30 or 0w-30) lacks an ILSAC specification, an ACEA A3/B3 or A3/B4 would explain why. If I'm looking at doing extended drains on an SN/GF-5 synthetic, an A1/B1 or A5/B5 rating guarantees a minimum TBN.

So, while not absolutely relevant, they do tell me some things. For instance, I could use Petro-Canada 0w30 in my G because it's SN/GF-5, as per the required specification. On the other hand, if I'm under warranty, GC 0w30 might be an issue because its HTHS is 3.5 or greater (which we can tell from the ACEA specifications) and won't meet the required ILSAC rating. And if I don't have a data sheet with TBN, I know that M1 and Pennzoil Platinum 5w30 may have a higher TBN than Petro-Canada synthetic 5w30 because the former have the appropriate ACEA specifications, whereas the latter lacks them.

Also, I can't think of any conventional PCMOs that will meet the ACEA specifications. In any case, it's important to ensure your oils meets the specifications of your vehicle. If it meets a few more, that's just gravy.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Also, I can't think of any conventional PCMOs that will meet the ACEA specifications. In any case, it's important to ensure your oils meets the specifications of your vehicle. If it meets a few more, that's just gravy.

I haven't seen any conventional oil that's also rated ACEA A1. I suspect that the NOACK requirement of 8.0 as I recall.

Most synthetic 20 grades pass A1 and most synthetic 30 grades pass A5.

 

[badtlc]

ACEA is dictated by auto manufacturers. It is the car companies telling the oil companies what they need for the engines.

API is the oil companies deciding what auto manufacturers need. It is the tail wagging the dog.

I don't know that ACEA means all that much for cars who don't spec ACEA oils since those auto manufacturers weren't involved in creating the spec.

The only thing I would say is that if I had a car that spec'd an ACEA oil, I would feel very comfortbale with any oil that meets that ACEA spec regardless of oil manufacturer. With API oils, I'm much more concerned about manufacturer and quality of the oil even if it has the same API rating.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
badtic - You said it so well!

 

[edhackett]

Really? I know for a fact from talking to someone who attends the API meetings that the manufacturers were the driving force behind SM and SN.

Ed

 

[Garak]

Here's a minor head scratcher for you, Doug, while we're on the topic. I've noticed that some API/ILSAC synthetics, like Mobil 1 5w30, Pennzoil Platinum 5w30, and so forth, do claim certain ACEA specs like A1/B1 and/or A5/B5. Some well regarded ones, however, do not. The ones that I've seen that do not tend to have TBN just shy of the ACEA minimums. Is that likely the only reason they do not claim those ACEA specifications, or have you seen other reasons in your experience?

For example, Petro-Canada Supreme Synthetic 5w30 has SA of 0.92, NOACK of 9%, is HTO-06 compliant, is SN/GF-5, and is formally dexos1 licensed. The TBN is 7.9, and no ACEA specs are claimed. Plus, I can get it for "free."

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Really? I know for a fact from talking to someone who attends the API meetings that the manufacturers were the driving force behind SM and SN.

Ed


Of course they were. That is exactly the problem with API. That should tell you everything you need to know.

That isn't an issue with ACEA spec'd oils. There is no auto manufacturer "driving" changes. The auto manufacturers in ACEA just make the change and the oil companies have to deal with it. The ACEA is going to dictate what is best for the car regardless of what the oil company wants to do. The API is going to do whatever the oil companies want to do with consideration for what the automotive makers have to say/need.

 

[edhackett]

You said:

Quote:
API is the oil companies deciding what auto manufacturers need. It is the tail wagging the dog.


It's the auto manufacturers deciding what they want and dictating to the oil companies.

Based on your last post, I think we're on the same page, ACEA being more engineering driven and API currently being more auto manufacturer bottom line driven(CAFE, emission warranty).

Ed

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
It's the auto manufacturers deciding what they want and dictating to the oil companies.


Within reason. Even in the API/ILSAC regime, GM brought out dexos for [likely] more than just a money grab, and the Europeans moved away from simple API specs, too. Obviously, GM and the Europeans weren't getting what they wanted out of the API/ILSAC specifications.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Garak - We all have different takes on these things.

Up until around the mid 1970s the API had little regard for the Vehicle Manufacturer's requirements/specifications - the API set the standards per se. Well, except for the likes of CAT and a few others and some Euro Manufacturers who had very specific requirements. The Petroleum Industry met these according to Market requiremenes

Some Euro Manufacturers had specific requirements and in many cases (MB, Porsche as examples) HD lubricants were specified due to the poor quality-standards-availability of the API's ML MM MS specifications

In the mid 1970s the US heavy high speed diesel engine Manufacturers issued an "ultimatum" to the API and the Manufacturer Consultative Committees were initiated. These were to change things quite quickly - one reason may be found in the Cummins L10 experience!

Rightly, the Euro Vehicle Manufacturers initiated ACEA and finally the API got the message! Well, at least a message!! When I joined BITOG I aften became embroiled in debates with the Amsoil purveyors and others of the time who thought ACEA was a new breed of Ice Cream or something similar!!!

From a Marketer's and Bean Counter's viewpoints it costs money to certify a product. It comes down to the perceived Market place and the likely share. At present in China for example there is an urgent move to provide Grp3 and Grp4 lubricants to an ever increasingly sophisticated Vehicle Market. Again, the Petroleum Industry is playing catch-up!

So in the US, why certify (or formulate) a lubricant if the Market is unlikely to support it in the required volumes? In Europe if the Petroleum Industry doesn't have the correct specification lubricant it cannot sell it - the market is there!

Another example is the Japanese - for many years they specified the simplest of lubricants in both diesel and petrol engines. At a Meeting I had with some Kubota Engineers in Japan around 1983-4 I mentioned using synthetics in their small high speed diesel engines - they discussed the matter for some time (in Japanese) and said (in English) that they could not recommend their use - the engines were designed for the simplest of lubricants of the time. They indicated that there may be operational problems.I used synthetics anyways over thousands of hours with great results!!!

As the Japanese markplace worldwide has become more sophisticated, so has the specifcations of their required lubricants

An around about viewpoint Garak - I hope it helps

And Ed - I thinks you've nailed it well too!!

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
You said:

Quote:
API is the oil companies deciding what auto manufacturers need. It is the tail wagging the dog.


It's the auto manufacturers deciding what they want and dictating to the oil companies.

Based on your last post, I think we're on the same page, ACEA being more engineering driven and API currently being more auto manufacturer bottom line driven(CAFE, emission warranty).

Ed


No it isn't. The auto makers can't dictate anything to API. They are completely independent of auto makers. All the auto makers can do is "ask" that API to meet their requirements. The API is not forced to do anything.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
From a Marketer's and Bean Counter's viewpoints it costs money to certify a product. It comes down to the perceived Market place and the likely share.


Thanks, Doug! I've said much the same thing here several times; I don't know why that escaped me this time. Just because a BITOGer might be happy to see an A1/B1 A5/B5 on a bottle doesn't mean that it's going to make a lot of sense to have it on a specific product that has little traction outside the North American market. Obviously, if one wants an additional spec, dexos1 might make a lot more sense than some ACEA specifications, from a marketing standpoint.

Notably, PC does claim some ACEA specifications on their 5w-40 Euro synthetic, which is extremely hard to find on their site, and they do claim some compatibility with some of the ACEA specifications with certain HDEOs. Interestingly enough, they're forthright enough to distinguish between formal certification and simple suitability on their sheets.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Garak - Official Certification is one thing, statements such as "Meets" or "Exceeds"is another! Many Euro Manufacturer's lubricant lists state officially Certified lubricants by Brand and nomenclature. This is how it should be

 

[Garak]

That's true, Doug. Petro-Canada seems to be very careful in distinguishing actual certifications versus suitability, particularly for the HDEOs, where they actually have coded charts on their data sheets.

 

[badtlc]

There are no extra costs for meeting an ACEA spec other than what it takes to make the oil meet the spec. All ACEA is, is a specification. You meet it or you don't.

An oil doesn't need to be licensed by ACEA like an API standard. If an oil has an API license, they had to pay for that and it was proven it met API's requirements. If a manufacturer's oil meets an ACEA spec, they can say that w/out paying any licensing fees.

In short, if an oil meets an ACEA spec, they should put it on the bottle and in documents because there is no reason not to. There is no additional cost for the oil maker.