API SL/SM Spec in the middle of SN era

O

OilUzer

Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
3,158
Castrol Edge Euro A3/B4 5W-30 was on sale for $23.xx and I got it for one of our older cars.

This oil is API SL but the jug says "Exceeds API SL".

Other stuff on back of the jug:
Approved & Licensed Specifications:
  • ACEA A3/B4
  • BMW LL-01
  • MB 229.5
  • VW 502 00 / 505 00
Suitable for use in the following specification: MB 229.3

I got it for our 2014 which the owner's manual allows API SL or above, and the only other spec is ILSAC GF-4 or above.

According to what I've read on bitog and the experts, with MB 229.5 and other approvals, this oil is better than the generic SM or SN ... please don't ask me to define better or I will have to find that thread. lol

In case someone asks why not buy the latest API? I already have bunch of cheap (Currently $15 / 5 qt. @ Costco) Kirkland API SP and other oil so that's not the issue.

According to Lubrizol, SL is Not suitable for engines introduced after 2004 ... I assume this statement is purely based on the API classification dates (2004 is introduction of SM) and very generic or nonspecific and good for management reports like their spider charts which I like btw.

Evidently engines build in 2014 which is the middle of SN era, can specify the basic SL, SM or higher.

I guess the main question is why cars/engines sold in U.S. and in the middle of SN era (2011-May 2018), specify SL/SM? There seems to be a disconnect. Is it because of the availability issues of higher classification oil in other countries and/or writing a generic owner's manual?

This made me think that some car/engine manufacturers think oil is oil ... SN, SM, SL , who cares? Ship it. 🤣


API SL - Lubrizol

API SL​

API Service Category SL was first introduced in 2001 for use in gasoline engines and is not suitable for use in engines introduced after 2004. API continues to license engine oils against API SL and it is considered to be a current specification.

Oils that satisfy API Service Category SL are superior in performance to those meeting API SJ and earlier and can effectively lubricate engines calling for those Service Categories.

Due to newer API Service Categories (API SN PLUS, API SN, API SM) being suitable for use in applications specifying API SL many oils available today also claim to meet the requirements of API SL. This leads to API SL being seen to a wide range of lubricants of different performance levels and viscosity grades.

Where only API SL is claimed these oils are typically high HTHS (≥ 3.5cP) SAE 10W-40, 15W-40 and 20W-50 based on API Group I or Group II base oils.

In some cases oils meeting API SL also carry an Energy Conserving claim to show that the oil has been formulated to improve fuel efficiency. These oils are typically low HTHS (≤ 3.5cP) SAE 5W-30 and 5W-20 based on API Group II base oils and coupled with ILSAC GF-3.

For more information on API SL, contact your Lubrizol representative.

For a deeper dive into specifications, see the Lubrizol Ready Reference Guide, the industry's go-to resource for understanding fuel and lubricant performance principles and requirements.
 
OilUzer said:
Castrol Edge Euro A3/B4 5W-30 was on sale for $23.xx and I got it for one of our older cars.

This oil is API SL but the jug says "Exceeds API SL".

Other stuff on back of the jug:
Approved & Licensed Specifications:
  • ACEA A3/B4
  • BMW LL-01
  • MB 229.5
  • VW 502 00 / 505 00
Suitable for use in the following specification: MB 229.3

I got it for our 2014 which the owner's manual allows API SL or above, and the only other spec is ILSAC GF-4 or above.

According to what I've read on bitog and the experts, with MB 229.5 and other approvals, this oil is better than the generic SM or SN ... please don't ask me to define better or I will have to find that thread. lol

In case someone asks why not buy the latest API? I already have bunch of cheap (Currently $15 / 5 qt. @ Costco) Kirkland API SP and other oil so that's not the issue.

According to Lubrizol, SL is Not suitable for engines introduced after 2004 ... I assume this statement is purely based on the API classification dates (2004 is introduction of SM) and very generic or nonspecific and good for management reports like their spider charts which I like btw.

Evidently engines build in 2014 which is the middle of SN era, can specify the basic SL, SM or higher.

I guess the main question is why cars/engines sold in U.S. and in the middle of SN era (2011-May 2018), specify SL/SM? There seems to be a disconnect. Is it because of the availability issues of higher classification oil in other countries and/or writing a generic owner's manual?

This made me think that some car/engine manufacturers think oil is oil ... SN, SM, SL , who cares? Ship it. 🤣


API SL - Lubrizol

API SL​

API Service Category SL was first introduced in 2001 for use in gasoline engines and is not suitable for use in engines introduced after 2004. API continues to license engine oils against API SL and it is considered to be a current specification.

Oils that satisfy API Service Category SL are superior in performance to those meeting API SJ and earlier and can effectively lubricate engines calling for those Service Categories.

Due to newer API Service Categories (API SN PLUS, API SN, API SM) being suitable for use in applications specifying API SL many oils available today also claim to meet the requirements of API SL. This leads to API SL being seen to a wide range of lubricants of different performance levels and viscosity grades.

Where only API SL is claimed these oils are typically high HTHS (≥ 3.5cP) SAE 10W-40, 15W-40 and 20W-50 based on API Group I or Group II base oils.

In some cases oils meeting API SL also carry an Energy Conserving claim to show that the oil has been formulated to improve fuel efficiency. These oils are typically low HTHS (≤ 3.5cP) SAE 5W-30 and 5W-20 based on API Group II base oils and coupled with ILSAC GF-3.

For more information on API SL, contact your Lubrizol representative.

For a deeper dive into specifications, see the Lubrizol Ready Reference Guide, the industry's go-to resource for understanding fuel and lubricant performance principles and requirements.
Click to expand...
Not “when the engine was built”, when the engine was introduced. It’s how the EJ257 in STIs called for nothing more than API SL at any point in its life. Sure, you can use a newer rating. But there’s no need to. So even though your engine was built in 2014, it likely dates much older than that? Besides, the Euro specs on that oil are current anyways, and are much more stringent than API ratings anyways.

No worries 👍🏻
 
Plumb Bob said:
Why would they care about API?

That oil carries the following, and that's all they care for.
  • ACEA A3/B4
  • BMW LL-01
  • MB 229.5
  • VW 502 00 / 505 00
Click to expand...

The oil I bought has those approvals and is technically API SL ... but it "Exceeds API SL".

The car is 2014 and OM says API SL or higher.

As far as other approx time frames:
SL 2001-2004
SM 2004-2010
SN 2011-May 2018

The car falls right in the middle of the API SN time frame and they cared to mention an API but with a much older classification. That triggered my curiosity!
 
Last edited:
You run into this. Off the top of my head are building codes. Local authorities often refer to a version five years or so behind the newest and greatest. Helps contractors adjust and use up old stock of materials.

Computer software might "need" a 233 MHZ Pentium to be "guaranteed" to run right but could get by with something worse if carefully tuned up.

SM has a use case that might be, but probably isn't, applicable to your SL motor, but nobody wants to stand behind their statements. I like Subyroo's take as well... the engine is the engine, it might stay how it is for a decade.
 
eljefino said:
You run into this. Off the top of my head are building codes. Local authorities often refer to a version five years or so behind the newest and greatest. Helps contractors adjust and use up old stock of materials.

Computer software might "need" a 233 MHZ Pentium to be "guaranteed" to run right but could get by with something worse if carefully tuned up.

SM has a use case that might be, but probably isn't, applicable to your SL motor, but nobody wants to stand behind their statements. I like Subyroo's take as well... the engine is the engine, it might stay how it is for a decade.
Click to expand...

Good point. I see what you mean.
Maybe no one wants to take that risk or change things.

If they are making a car in 2014 and let's assume as @SubieRubyRoo has suggested, the engine was first "introduced" in the SL era ... why bother and say use SN and higher if SL works for that design? Even though SN is readily available in the U.S. and theoretically is a "better" oil.

That's what lead me to say they think oil is oil. lol at least for this given engine and when it comes to SL vs. SN. Could be that SL is even preferred due to higher SAPS?!
 
OilUzer said:
I guess the main question is why cars/engines sold in U.S. and in the middle of SN era (2011-May 2018), specify SL/SM?
Click to expand...
API SM/SN/SP oils are NOT backwards compatible with API SL. Certain engines designed prior to 2004 that specify API SL oil can be ruined by API SM/SN/SP oils. I found out the hard way after many years running M1 and PP SN in my Toyota 2ZZ-GE engine that calls for API SL:

1726109627515.jpg
+ API SN =
1726109677387.jpg
 
ProbeGT said:
API SM/SN/SP oils are NOT backwards compatible with API SL. Certain engines designed prior to 2004 that specify API SL oil can be ruined by API SM/SN/SP oils. I found out the hard way after many years running M1 and PP SN in my Toyota 2ZZ-GE engine that calls for API SL:

View attachment 239917 + API SN = View attachment 239918
Click to expand...

I was under impression that API classifications are backward compatible!

However, I can see things being overlooked or fall through the cracks having to deal with with so many variables! Meaning questionable backward compatibility in some or rare cases. I've seen it happen in other fields or areas.
 
OilUzer said:
I was under impression that API classifications are backward compatible!

However, I can see things being overlooked or fall through the cracks having to deal with with so many variables! Meaning questionable backward compatibility in some or rare cases. I've seen it happen in other fields or areas.
Click to expand...

They are.

Cam lobes fail on those Toyota 2ZZ-GE engines if the valve clearances are set too tight. It has nothing to do with the oil.
 
I read in another thread that modern lubricants containing "a healthy dose of boron" are supposed to increase the load-carrying capacity of the oil by up to 8 times. The reduction in ZDP levels was offset with newer anti-wear technology.

Have you ever seen an ILSAC spider chart showing a degradation in oil performance with each new generation?
 
LongTime_Lurker said:
I read in another thread that modern lubricants containing "a healthy dose of boron" are supposed to increase the load-carrying capacity of the oil by up to 8 times. The reduction in ZDP levels was offset with newer anti-wear technology.

Have you ever seen an ILSAC spider chart showing a degradation in oil performance with each new generation?
Click to expand...
And yet, with today’s oils there are more timing chain failures and stretching than ever before. Something’s not the same…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
XO5W20-QFS 5w 30 motor oil. Any beside Mopar.........................
Replies
6
Views
3K
bdcardinal
dedonderosa
Anyone ever run Lubrication Engineers 5w30 Synthetic? Monolec® Syn Engine Oil 8531
Replies
16
Views
755
wlk
C
Valvoline Synpower for a flat tappet
Replies
17
Views
1K
OVERKILL
W
Mazda 2.5T Oil Selection
Replies
2
Views
2K
drtyler
B
BRP Tech. department confirmed, JASO MA2 not necessary in spyder RT 2023
Replies
9
Views
800
grampi
Back
Top