API Certification

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
filters are a whole 'nuther ballgame, and (more importantly) not the subject here.


I don't agree. It appears you have no ammo for a like situation that is even MORE common. Your "faith" or lack of it should be just as valid...or just as flawed.

..but if you can't adapt to the comparative, I'll not hold it against you. Not everyone can apply their own rules outside of the bubble that they wish to work in for the moment.

 

[OilGuy]

There are no OEM specs for oil filters (if anybody has them, please enlighten us). OEM filters are typically ~89% multipass efficient @ 20 microns. Bargain imports can be around 65% efficient and premium filters push 98-99+%.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: OilGuy
There are no OEM specs for oil filters (if anybody has them, please enlighten us). They are typically ~89% multipass efficient @ 20 microns. Bargain imports can be around 65% efficient and premium filters push 98-99+%.


Oh ..there are OEM spec's for filters. They're very detailed for the OEM producer of the product. It's just that ONLY the OEM producer is privy to them. The rest of all the offerings out there "meet or exceed" them.

 

[OilGuy]

As we change the direction of this thread, the OEM obviously knows what their filter will do, but for an oil change, they can't require their filter - and they don't list a filter performance spec like they do for oil. This effectively is stating to the do-it-yourself customer that there is no filter performance guideline.

 

[Gary Allan]

I don't see the "direction" of the thread changing. This has everything to do with engine warranties. This isn't some "apples and oranges" comparison.

If your filter or oil is found defective in the course of an engine failure, you are going to be seeking remedy from someone other than the manufacturer.

Using approved fluids doesn't assure an easy warranty claim. Let us look no further than our anal German/Swedish/Asian sludge issues with using approved fluids with dealer service (in some cases). Given the hoops that VW and others put on their oil requirements, one would think that getting an engine covered would be a walk in the park, yet we see that class action suits have to be "brokered" for consumers.

 

[DmanWho]

The 2007 Suzuki SX4 - New Vehicle Warranty Information book, page 17 1st paragraph, under the heading Maintenance and Repairs, states:
You are responsible for the proper use and maintenance of your vehicle. You should keep all receipts and maintenance records covering the performance of regular maintenance in the event questions arise. These receipts and maintenance records should be transferred to each subsequent owner of the vehicle. Suzuki reserves the right to deny warranty coverage if the vehicle has not been properly maintained.
(Here's the most interesting part)
Warranty claims will not be denied, however, solely because of the lack of required maintenance or failure to keep maintenance records.

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I don't see the "direction" of the thread changing. This has everything to do with engine warranties. This isn't some "apples and oranges" comparison.

If your filter or oil is found defective in the course of an engine failure, you are going to be seeking remedy from someone other than the manufacturer.

Using approved fluids doesn't assure an easy warranty claim. Let us look no further than our anal German/Swedish/Asian sludge issues with using approved fluids with dealer service (in some cases). Given the hoops that VW and others put on their oil requirements, one would think that getting an engine covered would be a walk in the park, yet we see that class action suits have to be "brokered" for consumers.


Wearing a parachute when you jump out of an airplane is no guarantee that you won't be injured when you land, but it does tilt the odds in you favor.

 

[Gary Allan]

This I will agree with. Surely IF such a situation occurs ..you're more than likely, give our state of the trade in warranty service, be in for a fight anyway. If one leaves no "outs" for the manufacturer, this fight (which is almost assured) will be less of a hassle than if one is potentially vulnerable in any way. Most of the time you're dealing with a rhetorical feint that has no real weight other than what you give it ..but you're still dealing with a situation of "it's what you let them get away with".

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: DmanWho
The 2007 Suzuki SX4 - New Vehicle Warranty Information book, page 17 1st paragraph, under the heading Maintenance and Repairs, states:
You are responsible for the proper use and maintenance of your vehicle. You should keep all receipts and maintenance records covering the performance of regular maintenance in the event questions arise. These receipts and maintenance records should be transferred to each subsequent owner of the vehicle. Suzuki reserves the right to deny warranty coverage if the vehicle has not been properly maintained.
(Here's the most interesting part)
Warranty claims will not be denied, however, solely because of the lack of required maintenance or failure to keep maintenance records.


Fairly typical. No "shall"s. There are very few (if any) owner's manual that say:

"Only the latest (at time of warranty claim) API LISTED motor oil shall be used at time of any warranty claim or warranty shall be declared null and void."

 

[cheetahdriver]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

I don't agree. It appears you have no ammo for a like situation that is even MORE common. Your "faith" or lack of it should be just as valid...or just as flawed.

..but if you can't adapt to the comparative, I'll not hold it against you. Not everyone can apply their own rules outside of the bubble that they wish to work in for the moment.


as you refuse to admit you are changing the argument, i will play along.

my "bullet" is simple. the M-M act says that you cannot force people to buy your product as a condition of warranty. so, you cannot say "you have to use GM goodwrench oil and filters to maintain your warranty" without giving them the product free of charge. what you can say is "you have to use API SL or subsequent oil", thus not requiring your product to be used, but requiring a product of a "standard" to be used. there is no "standard" for oil filters.

the Ad Hominem Variants where you attack the person as a way to avoid truth, science, or logic which might otherwise prove you wrong, is a standard ploy. i work outside the "bubble" just fine.

next?

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
there is no "standard" for oil filters.


I'm sorry, but you're VERY wrong. There are most certainly OEM spec's for oil filters and you'll never see them. There are also, almost identical, spec's for oils (OEM numbers) ..but I think that you'll also never see them either.

You may be able to find some, but let's just take something like VW 501.X. Just what is that? .2 .3 .4 .5.

MB229.x? Cummins blablablabla?

Shell Rotella meets or exceeds all of the OEM (numbered) spec's of various engines ...etc..etc.

Quote:
as a way to avoid truth, science, or logic which might otherwise prove you wrong, is a standard ploy.


Hmmm ...yeah, okay

..and yes, you work well in an environment of your own definition. Most do

 

[cheetahdriver]

well, i obviously can't compete with "secret" numbers. as a former SAE member among other things i can say with certainty that there are more things under the sun than i am aware of. however, the manual has no specification for filter usage, just that you should change it at every oil change.

perhaps you would care to enlighten us?

 

[Gary Allan]

The numbers aren't "secret" ..just like most of the OEM oil numbers aren't either. The "specifications" typically are not disclosed.

Those mile long Toyota and other OEM filter numbers aren't just part numbers.

AFAIK, the only detailed specification for a motor oil was Ford's introduction of the 5w-20. I think that they detailed their criteria due to the (alleged) radical move to 5w-20. That spec has some alphanumeric chain. They all do

Can you reference any of them "at will"? If so, I'd be very pleased to get a link.

 

[XS650]

I think the reason manufacturers don't get their knickers in a knot about oil filter specs is that just about any filter that doesn't outright fail is more than good enough to get an engine through warranty.

Owners that want their engines to last a lot longer than the 35,000 to 100,000 factory warranties might be wise to be more particular than the OEMs are.

 

[STG]

Amsoil dealers writing about oil filters and factory warranties! Do any of you care to discuss the "little" problem Amsoil had with 6.0 Powerstroke oil filters? You know, the ones that were an teeny bit shorter than OEM and failed to work properly with the factory anti-drain valve? I don't give a [censored] about Amsoil filtering down to .000000003 microns if the filter doesn't even fit correctly.

That's just one reason I use a Motorcraft oil filter in my Powerstroke.

Warranty replacement 6.0 engine = free or $100.00 deductable 36,001 - 100,000 miles

Replacement 6.0 engine with denied warranty = $13,000+

Motorcraft oil filter at Walmart = $19 peace of mind.

Most auto manufacturers are becoming more and more strict with warranty claims. They can play the game better than me, you, Pablo and Amsoil.

Look at what Subaru of America does. In their owners manuals, they suggest that Subaru Coolant is preferred, but specify a generic type if Subaru coolant is unavailable. Simultaneously, the published dealer service bulletins stating that any cooling system related warranty claims would not be honored unless Subaru coolant was present.

I called Subaru of America and informed them this was a rather clear violation of the tie-in provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Their formal response was that the service bulletin means that the dealer has to refill with Subaru Coolant after completing warranty work. Funny. My attorney didn't read it that way.

As for not testing oil or other fluids for warranty claims: I've personally seen a Subaru WRX at a California dealer with a blown engine. The young owner claimed hydraulic lock after "driving" through a puddle. Subaru of America paid for an oil and fuel analysis which showed that nitromethane was added to the gas tank.

Subaru officially cut OCIs in half on all 2008+ turbo engines. that means 3,750 miles. Gee, do you think the will look carefully at what oil and filter are present on failed engines? Nah.......

 

[Andrew]

The issue being discussed here is so very clear.

The new car warranty is an agreement between you and the manufacturer. It is no different from an insurance policy. The conditions are clearly stipulated and if you do not meet them then your warranty is void. Simple.

Toyota Aus new car warranties stipulate your oil has to be API certified SL or better. For this reason alone I use Mobil 1 in my new car and Amsoil in my car out of warranty. If I have a dodgy engine or transmission, that fails through no fault of the lubricant, I don't want to give the manufacturer any excuse not to fix my vehicle. Disregrading the requirement for at least an API SL oil is asking for trouble ....

 

[cheetahdriver]

getting back to the original thread..

the API certification is a indicator of both the quality of the oil and the consistency from one bottle to the next. while that is not to say that Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, or German Castrol may not have a bad batch slip through, for the most part, the oil you buy this week will be the same grade/wt/performance/etc as the oil you buy next week.

going to a boutique oil means you have to believe in the product. some of people evidently believe in amsoil/rp/rl/etc, they are still in business. they may have a superior product. i have used "boutique" oils myself, most recently molakule's SF products, and they worked (as i expected) fantastically.

but, don't play the "meets or exceeds" game. instead, why not say, "suitable for use in applications requiring API SM grade" or some such verbage. i would have great respect for a company that said the latter, and then put out the product that has the OA's to back it up. the former is just a free ride without the certification.

 

[Pablo]

Quote:
AMSOIL Signature Series 0w30 Synthetic Motor Oil is recommended for use in gasoline engines, diesel engines (API CF, ACEA B5) and other applications requiring SAE 0W-30, 5w30 or 10w30 with the following worldwide specifications:

• API SM/CF, SL, SJ …
• ILSAC GF-4, 3 …
• ACEA A5/B5-04
• GM 4718M, 6094M
• Ford WSS-M2C929-A
• Daimler Chrysler MS-6395N
• VW 503.00

 

[simple_gifts]

Quote:

getting back to the original thread..


Actually the original thread deals with warranty issues related to using a non certified oil; no one has questioned the quality of Amsoil (RL or RP)

Of course we can always pull out this old link
http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000487916.cfm?x=b661gt4,bsN5Nqs

Wow 2%, I willing to bet Amsoils QC is a lot better than that.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: XS650
I think the reason manufacturers don't get their knickers in a knot about oil filter specs is that just about any filter that doesn't outright fail is more than good enough to get an engine through warranty.

Owners that want their engines to last a lot longer than the 35,000 to 100,000 factory warranties might be wise to be more particular than the OEMs are.


Hey! I'm not here for a REAL argument! That's two doors down on the left. I'm here in ABUSE status. Blood sugar must be screwy and this is the thread I decided to be miserable in.