API Base oil interchange guidelines

Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
Oft quoted, again, here's the skinny from the API themselves
Quote:
APPENDIX E—API BASE OIL INTERCHANGEABILITY GUIDELINES FOR PASSENGER CAR MOTOR OILS AND DIESEL ENGINE OILS E.1 General E.1.1 INTRODUCTION Not all base oils have similar physical or chemical properties or provide equivalent engine oil performance in engine testing. During engine oil manufacture, marketers and blenders have legitimate needs for flexibility in base oil usage. The API Base Oil Interchangeability Guidelines (BOI) were developed to ensure that the performance of engine oil products is not adversely affected when different base oils are used interchangeably by engine oil blenders. The API Base Oil Interchangeability Guidelines define the minimum prudent physical and engine testing necessary to ensure that engine oil performance is not adversely affected by substitution of one base oil for another. The Guidelines are based on actual engine test data, using different base oils, for both gasoline and diesel engine oil performance. The Passenger Car Motor Oil (PCMO) Guidelines were based on the use of API Service Category SG performance level additive technology and updated for API SH, SJ, SL, and SM quality levels. The Diesel Engine Oil Guidelines were based on the use of API Service Categories CD and CD-II performance level additive technologies and updated for CE, CF, CF-2, CG-4, CH-4, CI-4, and CJ-4 quality levels. At these relatively high levels of additive formulation, many of the base oil differences are “overwhelmed” by the additive performance package. For this reason, these guidelines should not be used to predict equivalent interchange at additive performance levels lower than API Service Categories SH and CD. These Guidelines define the minimum acceptable level of testing for interchanging a base oil that every marketer must perform as a condition for obtaining a license. It is understood that when comparing base stock properties, the precision of the methods listed in Table E-1 is taken into consideration. Use of these Guidelines does not absolve the marketer of the responsibility for the actual performance of the licensed product sold in the aftermarket. The licensee must still ensure all of the engine and bench test results. These Guidelines are subject to modifications based on new data, new or revised test methods, and/or new performance specifications. The current Guidelines must always be used.
 
Messages
1,981
Location
Greatest Earth on Show, UT
So...if a marketer changes the base oil mix of a licensed product (completely substituting one base oil for another or keeping the same base oils but changing the percentages of each), they have to perform certain tests to ensure that the change did not adversely affect the performance of the finished product and do not have to get the product re-licensed if it passes those tests? I can see why this is needed due to varying availabilities/shortages of different base stocks while balancing the needs for maintaining the integrity of the API service categories without unduly burdening the marketers and therefore driving up costs due to production variables and delays and getting product to market.
 
Last edited:
Messages
961
Location
Ohio
Yes. This is why most marketers use a well planned out base oil slate when first certifying products, sometimes even planning for backups and substitutions to avoid having to redo testing. The BOI guidelines are especially helpful when setting up the base oil slate initially. These tests are pretty expensive to run and the wait time can be long if you are getting done in third party labs.
 
Messages
3,380
Location
BC, Canada
If I apply the information in this topic to engine oils, would it be reasonable to assume that mixing brands even in the same class, (for example HDMO CJ-4/SM) is acceptable, but not the best practice?
 

Shannow

Thread starter
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted By: used_0il
If I apply the information in this topic to engine oils, would it be reasonable to assume that mixing brands even in the same class, (for example HDMO CJ-4/SM) is acceptable, but not the best practice?
There was a statement made on the PCMO board that mixing was all AOK as the API let you interchange GrIII and GrIV interchangeably...against my statement that when blending, all of the specific approvals that the original oils had are no longer valid. Having reviewed the API interchange rules, I stand by my premise when blending finished product. If I get an early mark Friday, I might have a look at a common blend, and see what needs "retesting" to even claim SN...according to the interchange rules.
 
Messages
1,017
Location
UK
And this is just for base oils. There are similar restrictions on additives - usually much more severe meaning that any change to an additive (type or dosage) nullifies its approvals. There are certain cases where you can 'read across' from one thing to another, but it is pretty limited.
 
Messages
3,508
Location
Delaware
I assume this is only for API right? Other certifications like Dexos may be different meaning these rules are not worst case. Other certifications could require retesting for any change.
 

Shannow

Thread starter
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
At the end of the paper, there are some of the HDMO OEM specs discussed, and as you guessed, they are more stringent.
 
Messages
511
Location
California
Scheaffer Oil, on their phone techline, with a person who sounded like he knew oil there, said they used base oil interchange guidelines to say that the exact same Sequence IIIG results (exact 9.8 micron and 130% visc increase) applies across their entire line of PCMO's, semi-synthetics to full synthetics, all grades from 0w-20 to 5w-30, group II-III-IV mixes interchanged with group III-IV mixes in various viscosity grades. For some details, see first post in: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3660112/1 Can they just do a Sequence IIIG on one oil, out of 5 oils, across full syns to semi-syn groups? Correct application of interchange rules?
 

Shannow

Thread starter
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
If you read the Sequence IIIG lines it also refers to "Appendix R - Single Technology Matrix". Summarised http://papers.sae.org/2002-01-2676/ Been watching Penrite oils, and that appears to be exactly what they do across their ranges...same additive pack across a range of viscosities. http://www.penriteoil.com.au/pis_pdfs/210%20TENTHS%20PREMIUM%200%20SEPTEMBER%202014.pdf http://www.penriteoil.com.au/pis_pdfs/110%20TENTHS%20PREMIUM%205%20SEPTEMBER%202014.pdf http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3478523/Repco_0w-40
 
Messages
511
Location
California
Originally Posted By: Shannow
If you read the Sequence IIIG lines it also refers to "Appendix R - Single Technology Matrix". Summarised http://papers.sae.org/2002-01-2676/ Been watching Penrite oils, and that appears to be exactly what they do across their ranges...same additive pack across a range of viscosities. http://www.penriteoil.com.au/pis_pdfs/210%20TENTHS%20PREMIUM%200%20SEPTEMBER%202014.pdf http://www.penriteoil.com.au/pis_pdfs/110%20TENTHS%20PREMIUM%205%20SEPTEMBER%202014.pdf http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3478523/Repco_0w-40
Thanks for the clarification. All new to me. Might need to be an "Oil Lawyer" here to figure this out.
 
Messages
511
Location
California
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Originally Posted By: Shannow
If you read the Sequence IIIG lines it also refers to "Appendix R - Single Technology Matrix". Summarised http://papers.sae.org/2002-01-2676/ Been watching Penrite oils, and that appears to be exactly what they do across their ranges...same additive pack across a range of viscosities. http://www.penriteoil.com.au/pis_pdfs/210%20TENTHS%20PREMIUM%200%20SEPTEMBER%202014.pdf http://www.penriteoil.com.au/pis_pdfs/110%20TENTHS%20PREMIUM%205%20SEPTEMBER%202014.pdf http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3478523/Repco_0w-40
Thanks for the clarification. All new to me. Might need to be an "Oil Lawyer" here to figure this out.
From http://papers.sae.org/2002-01-2676/ : "Once a guideline is approved, a supplier can interchange or read an engine test pass for a particular additive package in a particular base oil and/or viscosity grade to a base oil and/or viscosity grade of equal or better performance without running an engine test." OK, so it sounds like a company can only claim an oil they didn't actually run through a Sequence IIIG for example "passed", not the all its oils magically have the same micron wear rating and viscosity increases.
 
Messages
3,380
Location
BC, Canada
I read that BOI is holding up the GF-6 roll-out. Is the addition of 5W16 and 0W16 the problem? To get around consumer protection laws, I wouldn't be surprised if auto manufactures started offering free maintenance for the duration of the warranty period with the purchase of a new vehicle. Why would they do that and how would it benefit the consumer as well as the vehicle?
 
Messages
2,024
Location
USA
Free maintenance is inexpensive advertising for most auto manufacturers - costing them under $200 per vehicle. It typically comprises 2 LOF changes and 2 tire rotations.
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Messages
21,954
Location
Iowegia - USA
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
So...if a marketer changes the base oil mix of a licensed product (completely substituting one base oil for another or keeping the same base oils but changing the percentages of each), they have to perform certain tests to ensure that the change did not adversely affect the performance of the finished product and do not have to get the product re-licensed if it passes those tests? I can see why this is needed due to varying availabilities/shortages of different base stocks while balancing the needs for maintaining the integrity of the API service categories without unduly burdening the marketers and therefore driving up costs due to production variables and delays and getting product to market.
And that is the primary reason for "read-across." Base oil availability varies and it allows formulators and blenders some wiggle room. Good explanation. thumbsup
 
Last edited:
Top