AMSOIL no longer pursuing Euro OEM approvals

[OVERKILL]

I really can't stand the break up of quotes, especially trying to reply from a phone.

But it's what I pointed out earlier, in the thread: GM and others, are trying to drive people back to the dealership, or otherwise capitalize from it through monetary gain.

Your counter quote was: When OEM-approved oils are available off the shelf at reasonable prices at every store including Walmart, I'm not sure as to how this could be construed as some grand conspiracy to force buying oil from the dealership.

Right, but we haven't seen that with Dexos though, everybody and their grandmother has the approval for the most part. Sorry about the breaking up of the reply, but I really like to respond to points individually to ensure everything is in context. Probably easier for you to reply on your desktop

Well, we've seen GM, Ford and others essentially drive their own aftermarket parts re-sellers out of business. I can't tell you the number of ACDelco, Motorcraft, Mopar, etc. third party parts distributors that are now done. This is to drive the parts market back through the dealership(s) for independent shops.

Guess I haven't seen that around here, we still have the same suppliers (PartSource, NAPA, Benson) that we always have had

They've driven parts re-manufacturing essentially out of business as well, in a lot of cases, or only through factory programs. Everything used to have a core charge, now almost nothing automotive does. You're seeing serialized parts that require dealership level diagnostics to approve the repairs. (I.e. Right to repair argument.)

I think in many cases the aftermarket suppliers brought some of this on themselves with the decline in quality with everything being white box garbage from China. Unless it's my son's beater Ranger, I generally grab OE parts now because everything else has become so questionable.

Regarding coding/serialization, BMW has been doing that for ages though (coded batteries for example, have to tell the ECM when you've replaced the battery - an extreme example of course). It's not new, it's just coming down-market.

You're seeing oil specs, such as the MOPAR 0w40 spec, that literally no one else can meet. Just not worth the money, period. Or, simply won't ever be licensed - TES 295 was one of these, certain automotive gear oils, transmission fluids, etc. There's one manufacturer for it, period.

Yeah, the SRT oil spec is silly, I'll give you that, it's basically an API SN additive package in a 0W-40, which is also why I don't use it.

So yeah, it's not a 'grand conspiracy' - it's simply the facts that the automotive OEM's are directing the consumers, forcefully, to the dealerships. Then they're purposefully making large dealership networks that are essentially, OEM direct business. (You see this more in the Ag / construction side, but it's going to play out the same in automotive.)

We could extend this further and look at the collapse of "car culture". I'm in my early 40's and grew up wrenching on stuff. Despite having a keen interest in computers, I developed extensive mechanical experience and when I was out on my own, I wrenched on my own stuff, friend's stuff, got into the 5.0L Mustang scene in a big way...etc.

The enthusiast scene has shrunk massively. I still see the odd warmed-over Civic but even the import scene is a shadow of its former self. Yeah, there are still boomers out there with their 50's, 60's and 70's rigs, but like me, they are aging. A couple of guys I used to hang out with are still carrying the torch, but most aren't.

I have three kids, my two boys took mechanics at school (thankfully it is still offered) and my son has the "Danger Ranger" that he's learning to wrench on, but none of his friends are doing that. He's 20, at that age, we were all wrenching on our beaters, friends had beaters...etc. That's not the case anymore, cars aren't "cool" anymore.

This is only going to get worse with the shift to hybrids and EV's.

Next - cheating.

The problem with your view on cheating, is you're looking at it from arguably, top 1% educated consumer. Let me remind you, the majority of people? Especially when it comes to engine oil? They're dumb. They are *very* dumb. They take it to a quicklube and get it changed, thats the end of the story for them. That is still the majority of the US engine oil market. Between My company, Reladyne and Cadance, there's over 40 million gallons of house branded PCMO business. In my case, yeah I don't cheat, won't cheat, not worth it. But I compete against people cheating every day, because there is an economic inventive from it, that allows shady players, to abuse the unwitting.

Then I'd argue that the regulatory framework isn't sufficiently strict if these people that are gaming the system aren't being caught. What good is mandating and guaranteeing a minimum level of performance if people are bypassing it with impunity?

You're looking at it from the perspective that knows better. Not from the perspective that doesn't know better. Now you can say education - sure, but... How? Where do you begin on this? It goes back to my above topic, the easiest way is to force people back to the dealership, to tie it back in.

Well, I see this as a predictable, but not really reasonable response to the issue of cheating. It sounds like the regulation needs an overhaul, but it does tie into the decline of car culture IMHO.

The other part about cheating, is the not-cheating, cheating. Or the gaming of specifications. For example, you can blend Petro Canada Group III's with Safety Kleen Group III's, toss in an afton additive package and BAM, Dexos 1 Gen 3 oil.

The problem is, it's trash. It's *Super* cheap, but they gamed the system, low noack, it's got the right approvals, but it's... not a good product, for it's category. And it's literally cheaper than some hydraulic oils to make. But, how many people on this board knew this before I just opened my mouth right now? No one. You assume you're getting a premium product when you buy that Dexos 1 Gen 3 name plate, but a lot of times, on top of the straight up cheating, you're getting a gamed product. Not a premium product you'd other wise assumed to be getting.

I assume this is a pre-approved additive package that works with this base oil blend? Now, when you call it garbage, do you mean that if it was actually formally tested, it wouldn't in fact pass?

Third, Amsoil - The reason why I personally see this as a potential problem, is muddying up the market. If you have a player like Amsoil, or even Valvoline, going down the road of "Meets of Exceeds" it starts muddying up the market place more and more. People see these major brands that "meet or exceed" then when smitty's supply or starfire releases their newest wunderbrand oil, that makes you wonder what it is... People will buy it. Because hey, everyone else is doing that, right??

Again, personally / professionally - I don't particularly care. You do you. I'm just noting my view on the market place from someone that sees a very, very different view of the oil industry than probably anyone else here.

But AMSOIL has always been "Meets or Exceeds". They've always had the entry-level API compliant stuff, and then EVERYTHING else was "Meets or Exceeds". Their introduction of the approved Euro series wasn't that long ago, it appears to have flopped, so they've reverted back to how things were previously.

 

[Bullwinkle007]

Lubricants.

Lots and lots of lubricants.

A little fuel, a little DEF.

Mostly millions of gallons of oil.

I have had my CDL 25 years this year.

 

[Foxtrot08]

lol, ok, you are right, we are wrong.

I'm not right about anything, I'm just showing you the documentation, from the source. I mean, this is right off the API's website:

API’s Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS) is a voluntary licensing and certification program that authorizes engine oil marketers that meet specified requirements to use the API Engine Oil Quality Marks. Launched in 1993, API’s Engine Oil Program is a cooperative effort between the oil and additive industries and vehicle and engine manufacturers Ford, General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler and those represented by the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. The performance requirements and test methods are established by vehicle and engine manufacturers and technical societies and trade associations such as (ASTM), (SAE), and the American Chemistry Council (ACC).


ACEA, historically, hasn't had anything to do with API as well. Which is why I keep getting confused why it's brought up.

 

[edyvw]

I'm not right about anything, I'm just showing you the documentation, from the source. I mean, this is right off the API's website:

API’s Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS) is a voluntary licensing and certification program that authorizes engine oil marketers that meet specified requirements to use the API Engine Oil Quality Marks. Launched in 1993, API’s Engine Oil Program is a cooperative effort between the oil and additive industries and vehicle and engine manufacturers Ford, General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler and those represented by the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. The performance requirements and test methods are established by vehicle and engine manufacturers and technical societies and trade associations such as (ASTM), (SAE), and the American Chemistry Council (ACC).


ACEA, historically, hasn't had anything to do with API as well. Which is why I keep getting confused why it's brought up.

And how is that different when we said decisions are not made in vacuum? What you posted clearly states that you have more players that are involved in setting standards.
You are getting confused bcs. you don’t know history behind ACEA and API at that time and specificities of European market at that time.
I talked about it here, and don’t plan to repeat myself for 21st or so time.

 

[OVERKILL]

ACEA, historically, hasn't had anything to do with API as well. Which is why I keep getting confused why it's brought up.

I think because this thread is about AMSOIL's Euro oils.

 

[Foxtrot08]

Right, but we haven't seen that with Dexos though, everybody and their grandmother has the approval for the most part. Sorry about the breaking up of the reply, but I really like to respond to points individually to ensure everything is in context. Probably easier for you to reply on your desktop

Guess I haven't seen that around here, we still have the same suppliers (PartSource, NAPA, Benson) that we always have had

At least in my region, the majority of the big parts distributors are gone. Not sure if it's hit canada yet, I don't play there. But for example, this is one of the big ones recently that's gone:

https://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/jobbers-automotive-warehouse-joins-alliance-cvhd-program/

No more OEM brands. Jobbers was Motorcraft, ACDelco and Mopar at one point.

Regarding coding/serialization, BMW has been doing that for ages though (coded batteries for example, have to tell the ECM when you've replaced the battery - an extreme example of course). It's not new, it's just coming down-market.

All I'm saying is that... It's not some grand conspiracy, it's happening. The right to repair lawsuits will help for a while, but the OEM's will find another way around it. Just different parts structures, or something.

Then I'd argue that the regulatory framework isn't sufficiently strict if these people that are gaming the system aren't being caught. What good is mandating and guaranteeing a minimum level of performance if people are bypassing it with impunity?

Because you're mandating XYZ minimum levels of performance. In GM's case, Dexos is essentially SP with lower noack, right? (Very, very basic terms here.) So you make a product that meets the noack spec and mocks the rest of the specs. It's why these oils fall apart, cause deposits, etc. very early on. Sure, they meet spec. But what do you expect for a product that is being wholesaled at ~$8.00 a gallon or less?

The last 'game the system' was Mobil's group III's. It literally dropped the price of dexos on the wholesale level basically $1.00 / gallon. But, it was at least better than the above. As, calling SK's Group III's group III's is... yeah that's something.

Well, I see this as a predictable, but not really reasonable response to the issue of cheating. It sounds like the regulation needs an overhaul, but it does tie into the decline of car culture IMHO.

I assume this is a pre-approved additive package that works with this base oil blend? Now, when you call it garbage, do you mean that if it was actually formally tested, it wouldn't in fact pass?

It would pass initial VOA's sure. Just, definitely don't do extended drains on it. It's a full synthetic that runs like a mid/upper tier Syn blend.

 

[Foxtrot08]

And how is that different when we said decisions are not made in vacuum? What you posted clearly states that you have more players that are involved in setting standards.
You are getting confused bcs. you don’t know history behind ACEA and API at that time and specificities of European market at that time.
I talked about it here, and don’t plan to repeat myself for 21st or so time.

I'm not confused at all.

And that is also not what you said, as I previously quoted, several times.

I'm also, very aware of the history. You don't have to repeat yourself to me. I just don't believe you're understanding what I'm saying, at all. Which is fine. This is the internet.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Third, Amsoil - The reason why I personally see this as a potential problem, is muddying up the market. If you have a player like Amsoil, or even Valvoline, going down the road of "Meets of Exceeds" it starts muddying up the market place more and more. People see these major brands that "meet or exceed" then when smitty's supply or starfire releases their newest wunderbrand oil, that makes you wonder what it is... People will buy it. Because hey, everyone else is doing that, right??

Again, personally / professionally - I don't particularly care. You do you. I'm just noting my view on the market place from someone that sees a very, very different view of the oil industry than probably anyone else here.

Appreciate this response and it makes perfect sense where consumers find themselves in trouble by running to non-dealer shops using bulk oil.

Quick question. Amsoil and Redline have been playing the "meets or exceeds" game for over 20 yrs so would you really consider this a new development? IMO it seems more like a return to 2005. BTW..I fully expect Redline to dump their OE line as well. Juice isn't worth the squeeze.

 

[Foxtrot08]

Appreciate this response and it makes perfect sense where consumers who run to non-dealer shop for oil changes.

Quick question. Amsoil and Redline have been playing the "meets or exceeds" game for over 20 yrs so would you really consider this a new development? IMO it seems more like a return to 2005. BTW..I fully expect Redline to dump their OE line as well. Juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Redline OE line is simply Kendall GT-1 re-branded, being honest.

I doubt they'll dump it because it almost costs P66 0 dollars to keep up, as they need to keep the Kendall brand up anyways.

I see a lot more Meets or Exceeds in the market now, then I did say, 5-8 years ago. 8-9 years ago you saw the sort of rise of Dexos 1 and branded products taking the prime seat at the market share table. GM Sort of brain washed everyone, into buying Dexos products. And specifically, major brand dexos products. This would be the Mobil's, the Valvoline's, the Kendall's, the Pennzoils, etc.

In the last ~4 years, I've seen a huge growth in house brands, quicklubes are not willing to pay that ~$3-4 gallon premium for 1. Branded products and 2. Dexos labeled products.

I'm not *too* worried about particularly Amsoil and Redline doing it, because of their premium reputation, same can be said with HPL, Driven, etc. But the overall trend of say Valvoline doing it, P66 doing it with Motorcraft and their Shield line up. People getting away from the Dexos 1, or any license driven spec, to say it will 'meet or exceeds' opens up the door for the Smitty/Cam 2's of the world, the starfires, etc. To be line yup we "meet or exceed" that spec too. Well... I mean, I don't trust them as far as I can throw their buildings. Collectively.

That being said, the market place pendulum is coming back the other way pretty hard I think. Honestly, I think Branded PCMO offerings are going to come back into style through programs, integration, etc.

At the end of the day, a company such as Chevron, P66, Shell, Mobil, etc. Can just do it cheaper through vertical integration and economies of scale. Sure, a company like Smitty's might blend 50-60 million gallons a year lets say, hypothetically. Well, they have to buy base oil (or... line wash), buy additives, blend it and get it to a distributor.

Let's look at Chevron:

- Makes their own base oils.
- Makes their own add packs
- Owns their blending facilities


So they can be just as competitive, by with holding additives/base stocks to the third party blenders... And just use it more themselves internally. You can see the same in Mobil/Shell, P66... Someone will just have to make a deal with the additive companies to start drying them up. And... the majors will muscle their way back into the market place.

Part of this, as previously mentioned, will be brand specific approvals. Where another brand, simply can't get that approval because brand A bought it from the OEM.

 

[edyvw]

I'm not confused at all.

And that is also not what you said, as I previously quoted, several times.

I'm also, very aware of the history. You don't have to repeat yourself to me. I just don't believe you're understanding what I'm saying, at all. Which is fine. This is the internet.

I said API was not willing to deliver oil to the European market that it needed it. ACEA was result of that.
You yourself quoted pdf that has multiple stakeholders at the table. No, manufacturers do not "write:" standards, is what I said, and what you quoted from that pdf. Manufacturers are just one of many groups at that table. That is the problem!
Let's also not forget that API is the one that started the LSPI debacle with additive limits (not that excuses junk engineering on many manufacturers), and it surfaced out the problem.

 

[Foxtrot08]

I said API was not willing to deliver oil to the European market that it needed it. ACEA was result of that.
You yourself quoted pdf that has multiple stakeholders at the table. No, manufacturers do not "write:" standards, is what I said, and what you quoted from that pdf. Manufacturers are just one of many groups at that table. That is the problem!
Let's also not forget that API is the one that started the LSPI debacle with additive limits (not that excuses junk engineering on many manufacturers), and it surfaced out the problem.

... Alright, I was going to move on beyond this subject.

However...


ACEA was started in 1991, as the lobbying group for the EU. Previous to that, the CCMC existed, as their primary lobbying group.

This happened because there was a large divide between the car makers in Europe, what we would consider boutique / super car manufacturers and 'regular' car manufacturers.

The re-form was needed, because of how the CCMC was set up - in 3 segments - French, German and Italian manufacturers (with British falling in with French for lobbying purposes.) As, in the 1992 vote saw that legalized the Masstricht Treaty (spelling might? be off on that..) The automakers wanted to uniform their lobbying efforts, laws, emissions requirements, testing standards, etc. across all EU borders. That way Italian wouldn't be different than French, wouldn't be different than German, etc.


Now, the first ACEA oil standards didn't happen until 1996, this, corresponded with API SJ standards at the same time. Again, nothing to do with API 'not moving' fast enough. As, in that time from, the API was actually moving fast, compared to today were things are at a snails pace. To remind you of history, we had SF - 1988, SG - 1993, SH - 1996, SJ - 1997, SL - 2001, SM - 2004. So in 16 years, we had 6 service categories - one, approximately, every 2.7 years. Which, compared today's changes, is moving at the speed of light. Thus, what you're saying literally doesn't have any historical facts to it.... Which, now we'll move on to the present.

If you flip to slides 12 and 13, of the presentation I linked, you will see 'Developing of gasoline engine oil standards."

The Auto Oil Advisory Panel consists of:
Gasoline Engine manufacturers (global)
Oil marketers (API)
Additive suppliers.

AOAP receives request for a new specification, then validates the need and finally determines the test development requirement.

How this works:
OEMS (Ford, GM, Toyota, etc.) develop performance tests.
ASTM formalizes the tests - making sure it's repeatable, scientific, peer reviewed, etc. And writes the document/publishes the document on how to do, said test.
AOAP adopts the standard.

API Lubricants group, then adopts the standards, for people like me, to license.


So yes, quite literally, OEM's 'write' the performance tests. OEM's also, quite literally, vote on the panel, to adopt the oil testing standards.

It was not the API that put additive limits on oil, it was EPA.

This started, in the EPA's 1978 report, literally named 'Zinc' - you can find it on the NSCEP website, for free. If you want some really dry reading, it's 745 pages. One can trace the start, of anti-ZDDP pressure to that. I would suggest, the 1994 book, "Tribology letters" series - "The History and Mechanisms of ZDDP"

Finally, in turn, the SN+ debacle, was quite literally held back by GM. Dexos 1 Gen 1 - had, already addressed the LSPI issues, as GM, quite early on discovered them, it was introduced in 2011, SN was introduced in 2010. SN+ was not 'released' officially, until 2018. Unofficially, it was 'released' sometime around 2014 you would see that formula being pretty standard, as everyone realized the problem. SN, was a bit of a debacle, because the push for new fuels - specifically, E85 - which once more, came from the government.

We good now?

 

[edyvw]

... Alright, I was going to move on beyond this subject.

However...


ACEA was started in 1991, as the lobbying group for the EU. Previous to that, the CCMC existed, as their primary lobbying group.

This happened because there was a large divide between the car makers in Europe, what we would consider boutique / super car manufacturers and 'regular' car manufacturers.

The re-form was needed, because of how the CCMC was set up - in 3 segments - French, German and Italian manufacturers (with British falling in with French for lobbying purposes.) As, in the 1992 vote saw that legalized the Masstricht Treaty (spelling might? be off on that..) The automakers wanted to uniform their lobbying efforts, laws, emissions requirements, testing standards, etc. across all EU borders. That way Italian wouldn't be different than French, wouldn't be different than German, etc.


Now, the first ACEA oil standards didn't happen until 1996, this, corresponded with API SJ standards at the same time. Again, nothing to do with API 'not moving' fast enough. As, in that time from, the API was actually moving fast, compared to today were things are at a snails pace. To remind you of history, we had SF - 1988, SG - 1993, SH - 1996, SJ - 1997, SL - 2001, SM - 2004. So in 16 years, we had 6 service categories - one, approximately, every 2.7 years. Which, compared today's changes, is moving at the speed of light. Thus, what you're saying literally doesn't have any historical facts to it.... Which, now we'll move on to the present.

If you flip to slides 12 and 13, of the presentation I linked, you will see 'Developing of gasoline engine oil standards."

The Auto Oil Advisory Panel consists of:
Gasoline Engine manufacturers (global)
Oil marketers (API)
Additive suppliers.

AOAP receives request for a new specification, then validates the need and finally determines the test development requirement.

How this works:
OEMS (Ford, GM, Toyota, etc.) develop performance tests.
ASTM formalizes the tests - making sure it's repeatable, scientific, peer reviewed, etc. And writes the document/publishes the document on how to do, said test.
AOAP adopts the standard.

API Lubricants group, then adopts the standards, for people like me, to license.


So yes, quite literally, OEM's 'write' the performance tests. OEM's also, quite literally, vote on the panel, to adopt the oil testing standards.

It was not the API that put additive limits on oil, it was EPA.

This started, in the EPA's 1978 report, literally named 'Zinc' - you can find it on the NSCEP website, for free. If you want some really dry reading, it's 745 pages. One can trace the start, of anti-ZDDP pressure to that. I would suggest, the 1994 book, "Tribology letters" series - "The History and Mechanisms of ZDDP"

Finally, in turn, the SN+ debacle, was quite literally held back by GM. Dexos 1 Gen 1 - had, already addressed the LSPI issues, as GM, quite early on discovered them, it was introduced in 2011, SN was introduced in 2010. SN+ was not 'released' officially, until 2018. Unofficially, it was 'released' sometime around 2014 you would see that formula being pretty standard, as everyone realized the problem. SN, was a bit of a debacle, because the push for new fuels - specifically, E85 - which once more, came from the government.

We good now?

I did not say API did not move fast enough. It was unwilling to follow the demands of European manufacturers. What you arguing about different standard within 6 years is irrelevant, They were not stringent enough nor API was willing to make them.
European approvals happened before ACEA had its first specifications precisely because API did not deliver what VW, in particular, needed. That pushed ACEA, and departure from API standards.

If you flip to slides 12 and 13, of the presentation I linked, you will see 'Developing of gasoline engine oil standards."

The Auto Oil Advisory Panel consists of:
Gasoline Engine manufacturers (global)
Oil marketers (API)
Additive suppliers.

AOAP receives request for a new specification, then validates the need and finally determines the test development requirement.

You are constantly confirming what I am saying to you. You have too many competing interests there. Therefore manufacturers do not "write" standards. They have to meet in the middle. hence GM having Dexos. I really did not go deep into reasons why GM has Dexos, but reasons why Euro manufacturers went their own approvals is because API was not having sufficient standards for at that time rapidly developing small turbo diesel direct injection engines. Even when ACEA issues its standards, it was starting point. So, why GM did not oush API to develop what they exactly need? Bcs. API needed to meet demands of other stakeholders.
Idea behind Euro approvals is to make life of consumer easy. I worked on the development and subsequent licensing of VW 504.00/507.00 oil. And it costed oil company 3,200 euros to get approval (our oil had to be tested regardless that we bought additive package from well know supplier. But, we were small company, and VW will do that occasionally). But our customer now knows that that is appropriate oil and does not have to "fish" around for oils. I would say GM thinking was similar. By the way, our oil never had API stamp, because it was irrelevant for our intended purposes.

 

[Foxtrot08]

I did not say API did not move fast enough. It was unwilling to follow the demands of European manufacturers. What you arguing about different standard within 6 years is irrelevant, They were not stringent enough nor API was willing to make them.
European approvals happened before ACEA had its first specifications precisely because API did not deliver what VW, in particular, needed. That pushed ACEA, and departure from API standards.

Let’s go over your quotes:

API is oil industry group. Fundamentally different from ACEA, manufacturers group.
The reason why ACEA was formed is unwillingness of API to follow manufacturers in the beginning of 90’s.


Nope. ACEA formation was in particularly response to API not being willing to follow downsizing trend in Europe, particularly in diesel engines. I am not arguing that manufacturers don’t have an input, but FAR from them “writing” specifications.


Okay so things that you’ve already back peddled on, or are clearly wrong:

1. ACEA formation was in particularly a response of the API. This, is clearly not true. And is common knowledge that the ACEA was formed as a lobbying organization, as Brussels became the HQ of the EU and they wanted to uniform standards. And they couldn’t, under the previous organization.

2. Since the “beginning of the 90s” - well, considering the ACEA hardly existed until, technically, the mid 90s and their oil standards didn’t come out until 1996… your time line is not good.

3. I’m not arguing anything. You are. I’m simply presenting facts to you. Those are literally the posted dates for each specification. There’s several websites you can go on and see.

4. ILSAC is still involved, with the API. So, VW has not departed from the API. As, ILSAC is part of the decision maker council, of the API.


Now, I could go into the whole why this happened history, emission standards, testing, lawsuits, etc. but, I really don’t want to spend that much time going down the rabbit hole.

You are constantly confirming what I am saying to you. You have too many competing interests there. Therefore manufacturers do not "write" standards. They have to meet in the middle. hence GM having Dexos. I really did not go deep into reasons why GM has Dexos, but reasons why Euro manufacturers went their own approvals is because API was not having sufficient standards for at that time rapidly developing small turbo diesel direct injection engines. Even when ACEA issues its standards, it was starting point. So, why GM did not oush API to develop what they exactly need? Bcs. API needed to meet demands of other stakeholders.
Idea behind Euro approvals is to make life of consumer easy. I worked on the development and subsequent licensing of VW 504.00/507.00 oil. And it costed oil company 3,200 euros to get approval (our oil had to be tested regardless that we bought additive package from well know supplier. But, we were small company, and VW will do that occasionally). But our customer now knows that that is appropriate oil and does not have to "fish" around for oils. I would say GM thinking was similar. By the way, our oil never had API stamp, because it was irrelevant for our intended purposes.

The manufacturers, literally write the tests.

It’s right there. That’s it. Why do you think, in all the Valvoline R&P threads, everyone is hung up on the Sequence IIIH test? Yeah, Chrysler wrote it. Which is why it uses a 3.6L Chrysler engine.

It literally says in the oil specifications document, who wrote the test. What company it comes from.

The OEMs write the standards that engine oil manufacturers (and/or additive companies) have to meet. The API, simply is the certification agency of these specs. It is literally in the name of their program. “Certification.”

Not writers. Not creators. Developers. They certify.

That’s the facts.

My entire point, of posting the GM Dexos thing, is showing how they’re purposefully screwing things up. Because they are such a large voice in that arena, they can slow down the approval process. And they have actively engaged in that. This is so they can maket their Dexos 1 Gen whatever product. The API realistically, could have had SN+ on the market by 2012 maybe 2013. We could have been on SP by 2015, which, iirc it was originally projected to be.

But, again, you’re now proving my point. Because of the monetary incentives, to not go through the API, and have individual manufacturers specifications, OEMs are doing that, more and more.

Which, wraps me back around to my point that, OEMs are going to drive people back to the dealership. And, this will continue to muddy up the market place.

 

[edyvw]

Let’s go over your quotes:

API is oil industry group. Fundamentally different from ACEA, manufacturers group.
The reason why ACEA was formed is unwillingness of API to follow manufacturers in the beginning of 90’s.


Nope. ACEA formation was in particularly response to API not being willing to follow downsizing trend in Europe, particularly in diesel engines. I am not arguing that manufacturers don’t have an input, but FAR from them “writing” specifications.


Okay so things that you’ve already back peddled on, or are clearly wrong:

1. ACEA formation was in particularly a response of the API. This, is clearly not true. And is common knowledge that the ACEA was formed as a lobbying organization, as Brussels became the HQ of the EU and they wanted to uniform standards. And they couldn’t, under the previous organization.

2. Since the “beginning of the 90s” - well, considering the ACEA hardly existed until, technically, the mid 90s and their oil standards didn’t come out until 1996… your time line is not good.

3. I’m not arguing anything. You are. I’m simply presenting facts to you. Those are literally the posted dates for each specification. There’s several websites you can go on and see.

4. ILSAC is still involved, with the API. So, VW has not departed from the API. As, ILSAC is part of the decision maker council, of the API.


Now, I could go into the whole why this happened history, emission standards, testing, lawsuits, etc. but, I really don’t want to spend that much time going down the rabbit hole.




The manufacturers, literally write the tests.

It’s right there. That’s it. Why do you think, in all the Valvoline R&P threads, everyone is hung up on the Sequence IIIH test? Yeah, Chrysler wrote it. Which is why it uses a 3.6L Chrysler engine.

It literally says in the oil specifications document, who wrote the test. What company it comes from.

The OEMs write the standards that engine oil manufacturers (and/or additive companies) have to meet.

That’s the facts.

My entire point, of posting the GM Dexos thing, is showing how they’re purposefully screwing things up. Because they are such a large voice in that arena, they can slow down the approval process. And they have actively engaged in that. This is so they can maker their Dexos 1 Gen whatever product. The API realistically, could have had SN+ on the market by 2012 maybe 2013. We could have been on SP by 2015, which, iirc it was originally projected to be.

But, again, you’re now proving my point. Because of the monetary incentives, to not go through the API, and have individual manufacturers specifications, OEMs are doing that, more and more.

Which, wraps me back around to my point that, OEMs are going to drive people back to the dealership. And, this will continue to muddy up the market place.

Yep, I precisely said what you quoted. Both grops represent their constituents. They are lobbying groups and FUNDAMENTALLY different from each other. One is petroleum industry lobbying group, another one is manufacturers lobbying group. That is the point! GM can be player here, but not all players are same. Especially those that API actually lobbies for.

Yes ACEA standards are created in response for not having sufficient standards from API.
ACEA inception dates to end if 80’s. You don’t satrt something like that in a year. And back than EU did not exist, EC did. ACEA since than evolved to various things, but back than manufacturers needed better oil standards which API didn’t want to deliver.

As for dealership, nothing stops people buying oils from Wal Mart and keeping warranty. They are not bound by dealership. GM might have different motives but in Europe, the whole idea behind approvals is precisely one to make customers life easier when it comes to maintenance, AND not to cause engine issues by using inappropriate oil.
However, nothing stopped customer to change oil in BOSCH service not BMW service. In the US customers are even more protected by Magnusson-Moss Act.
In the end, it is Euro forum. Who cares about Dexos or API. Both are not sufficient.

 

[Foxtrot08]

Yep, I precisely said what you quoted. Both grops represent their constituents. They are lobbying groups and FUNDAMENTALLY different from each other. One is petroleum industry lobbying group, another one is manufacturers lobbying group. That is the point! GM can be player here, but not all players are same. Especially those that API actually lobbies for.

Yes ACEA standards are created in response for not having sufficient standards from API.
ACEA inception dates to end if 80’s. You don’t satrt something like that in a year. And back than EU did not exist, EC did. ACEA since than evolved to various things, but back than manufacturers needed better oil standards which API didn’t want to deliver.

As for dealership, nothing stops people buying oils from Wal Mart and keeping warranty. They are not bound by dealership. GM might have different motives but in Europe, the whole idea behind approvals is precisely one to make customers life easier when it comes to maintenance, AND not to cause engine issues by using inappropriate oil.
However, nothing stopped customer to change oil in BOSCH service not BMW service. In the US customers are even more protected by Magnusson-Moss Act.
In the end, it is Euro forum. Who cares about Dexos or API. Both are not sufficient.

Okay. Well, here’s the official history.

https://www.acea.auto/about-acea/


So, whatever. You’re not understanding anything I’m saying. Cheers and good luck.

 

[edyvw]

Okay. Well, here’s the official history.

https://www.acea.auto/about-acea/


So, whatever. You’re not understanding anything I’m saying. Cheers and good luck.

Thanx for confirming it is fundamentally different from API.

 

[svenson]

We could extend this further and look at the collapse of "car culture". I'm in my early 40's and grew up wrenching on stuff. Despite having a keen interest in computers, I developed extensive mechanical experience and when I was out on my own, I wrenched on my own stuff, friend's stuff, got into the 5.0L Mustang scene in a big way...etc.

The enthusiast scene has shrunk massively. I still see the odd warmed-over Civic but even the import scene is a shadow of its former self. Yeah, there are still boomers out there with their 50's, 60's and 70's rigs, but like me, they are aging. A couple of guys I used to hang out with are still carrying the torch, but most aren't.

I have three kids, my two boys took mechanics at school (thankfully it is still offered) and my son has the "Danger Ranger" that he's learning to wrench on, but none of his friends are doing that. He's 20, at that age, we were all wrenching on our beaters, friends had beaters...etc. That's not the case anymore, cars aren't "cool" anymore.

This is only going to get worse with the shift to hybrids and EV's.

man, you have just describe the ''car-modern owners'' relationship with the best words.its a closing era unfortunately.

p.s early 40's and one of your sons 20 years ? you had your kids so young,congrats!

 

[OVERKILL]

man, you have just describe the ''car-modern owners'' relationship with the best words.its a closing era unfortunately.

p.s early 40's and one of your sons 20 years ? you had your kids so young,congrats!

Yeah, he was born in '03. We started early so that we could have the kids out of the house before retirement, lol. Not sure how that's going to work out with house pricing the way it is, but I have hope!

 

[Overfill]

I mean, what objective instances has the API shorthanded or subverted requests from the OEMs in the spark-ignition spec building? Because the argument that the ACEA was built to "save" the poor OEMs seems predicated on that happening.

 

[edyvw]

I mean, what objective instances has the API shorthanded or subverted requests from the OEMs in the spark-ignition spec building? Because the argument that the ACEA was built to "save" the poor OEMs seems predicated on that happening.

I mean no one was saving anyone. European manufacturers were having at that point far different demands mostly because of the explosion of the small turbo diesel engine market.