API standards inadequate?

[StevieC]

The mere talk about a non-API oil will have folks on your behind faster than you know what. Been there done that.

They don't care if the vehicle wears faster than it could because an API oil will carry it through the warranty period and then some. It's fine for most folks but not as good as it can and should be. That's my point.

Yeah and we would have heard about GM engines having issues with non officially licensed oils claiming to meet the D1G2 specifications like Amsoil. Where is that? Where is their reformulation or back peddling? Heck they would even be on the hook with their warranty. Heck when have they not met something they have claimed in the 40+ years of operating? I'll even accept that.

I said why was it Formulators/Blenders that discovered lowering calcium in an oil could prevent LSPI. Not about discovering LSPI itself.

The API needs to be ahead of the curve, not reactive to problems with new specs coming out after it has cost folks money. Or at the very least issue corrections to the specification right away to help limit damage as quickly as possible. After all they are supposed to be there to protect folks.

The ACEA specifications should be the go-to and the API sent for extinction. No need for both and certainly not when ACEA is superior.

 

[StevieC]

BTW... Looks like M1 just posted some results of the 20K Mile test for their AP product - https://mobiloil.com/en/article/why-the-mobil-advantage/mobil-1-performance/20k-road-trip

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
The mere talk about a non-API oil will have folks are your behind faster than you know what. Been there done that.


I don't think that's isolated to the API, it is unapproved lubricants in general and that extends to OEM approvals and ACEA stuff.

Originally Posted by StevieC
They don't care if the vehicle wears faster than it could because an API oil will carry it through the warranty period and then some. It's fine for most folks but not as good as it can and should be. That's my point.


If it gets the car to the junk yard, and that's all they demand of it, why does it matter? Obviously the OEM's that spec the basic API approval believe that to be sufficient. Sure, that's not in-line with BITOG OCD, but it is reality.

Originally Posted by StevieC
Yeah and we would have heard about GM engines having issues with non officially licensed oils claiming to meet the D1G2 specifications like Amsoil. Where is that? Where is their reformulation or back peddling? Heck they would even be on the hook with their warranty. Heck when have they not met something they have claimed in the 40+ years of operating? I'll even accept that.


My point was that it isn't the cost of the the Dexos approval that drives price, since the Dexos approved lubricants are cheaper than the AMSOIL offering that isn't. That's why the price on lubricants that now carry Dexos hasn't changed.

Originally Posted by StevieC
I said why was it Formulators/Blenders that discovered lowering calcium in an oil could prevent LSPI. Not about discovering LSPI itself.

The API needs to be ahead of the curve, not reactive to problems with new specs coming out after it has cost folks money. After all they are supposed to be there to protect folks.


Toyota was involved in not only discovering LSPI but also in discovering that Calcium was the cause:
https://www.fuelsandlubes.com/fli-article/lspi-a-knock-on-the-newest-engines/

Originally Posted by FuelsandLubes
A series of papers presented at the JSAE/SAE Powertrains, Fuels and Lubricants International Meeting in Kyoto, Japan in September, indicated that LSPI arises from interactions between lubricants, fuels and engine design/operation. With regard to lubricants, there's one likely culprit: the CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) in the detergent additive.

"We have to find and alternative to CaCO3," said Yasuo Moriyoshi, professor of mechanical engineering at Japan's Chiba University. Moriyoshi was co-author of a paper on the calcium contribution to LSPI.

He was also involved in an industry research consortium sponsored by Toyota, Honda, Mazda and Other OEM's from 2011 to 2013. The results that were presented in September build upon that research.


Ahead of the curve like Toyota? Honda? Mazda? These are all companies that knew about LSPI and what caused it, sponsored the research, and yet here we are only recently seeing reformulations taking place to address it as being what's rolled into SN Plus.

Formulators/Blenders, like Infineum, Lubrizol, Afton...etc are best poised to implement the changes required and perform the required testing given their role in additive development and supply.

The discovery of problems, and their solutions, is a concerted effort. It involves OEM's, lubricant manufacturers and additive manufacturers (sometimes the same bodies like with Chevron Oronite and Mobil/Shell/Infineum) working together. The latter are almost all universally members of the API.

 

[StevieC]

Just because they don't carry the official approval of D1G2 doesn't mean they aren't capable and shouldn't be thought of as that. I posted the e-mail here in which their response was that they didn't want to pay for it but that it meets the requirements. Like M1 not listing MS-6395 because of the nonsense that went on with Chrysler but you and I both know the oil is more than capable of this specification.

That would open up AMSOIL to be easily sued if it weren't true, especially with a technical representatives name attached to that e-mail if something were to go wrong in a D1G2 required application and it was proven to be the fault of the lubricant. Timing chain eating monsters from GM are out there to prove this theory.

Further we would most likely have seen a generalized response from AMSOIL trying to side-step the issue if they were trying to be shady about it or trying to claim something they knew they weren't capable of. Not direct confirmation that would incriminate them in a lawsuit in the form of an e-mail with someones name attached.

We would also see terrible UOA performance here if they weren't capable of their claims and the internet would be full of "they screwed me" stories, but we just don't see that.

As for the calcium issue, that I wasn't aware of I thought it was the oil formulators that figured it out as that is how it came off in other threads here I read. I stand corrected on that one being Toyota that figured it out.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Just because they don't carry the official approval of D1G2 doesn't mean they aren't capable and shouldn't be thought of as that. I posted the e-mail here in which their response was that they didn't want to pay for it but that it meets the requirements. Like M1 not listing MS-6395 because of the nonsense that went on with Chrysler but you and I both know the oil is more than capable of this specification.

That would open up AMSOIL to be easily sued if it weren't true, especially with a technical representatives name attached to that e-mail if something were to go wrong in a D1G2 required application and it was proven to be the fault of the lubricant. Timing chain eating monsters from GM are out there to prove this theory.

Further we would most likely have seen a generalized response from AMSOIL trying to side-step the issue if they were trying to be shady about it or trying to claim something they knew they weren't capable of. Not direct confirmation that would incriminate them in a lawsuit in the form of an e-mail with someones name attached.

We would also see terrible UOA performance here if they weren't capable of their claims and the internet would be full of "they screwed me" stories, but we just don't see that.


My point was about the price relative to the performance of D1G2. It hasn't, despite being more demanding, driven up the price of the approved lubricants. This is reinforced by AMSOIL's price still being higher, despite not carrying that official approval. I'm not saying they didn't adequately test it. I trust that they did. Simply that the cost of the approval doesn't have significant bearing on the final price of the lubricant.

Originally Posted by StevieC
for the calcium issue, that I wasn't aware of I thought it was the oil formulators that figured it out as that is how it came off in other threads here I read. I stand corrected on that one being Toyota that figured it out.


Toyota and other OEM's funded research on it. I've seen Toyota mentioned a pile of times in the SAE references, so I tend to give them a bit more credit. They appear to have been engaged from the get-go.

 

[StevieC]

I know, I said that above. The SN and D1G2 oils are the same cost so why SN hasn't adopted the D1G2 requirements when they are needed and GM makes up a pile of the vehicles on the road, when it covers the SN specification as well is beyond me. Especially considering they would offer better protection than SN alone in non D1G2 required applications.

Quote
Especially when price doesn't seem to be a factor (D1G2 oils are no more expensive when compared to SN rated only synthetics) and considering most oils are D1G2 rated now anyway and that it encompasses the SN requirements anyway.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by StevieC
I know, I said that above. The SN and D1G2 oils are the same cost so why SN hasn't adopted the D1G2 requirements when they are needed and GM makes up a pile of the vehicles on the road, when it covers the SN specification as well is beyond me. Especially considering they would offer better protection than SN alone in non D1G2 required applications.

Quote
Especially when price doesn't seem to be a factor (D1G2 oils are no more expensive when compared to SN rated only synthetics) and considering most oils are D1G2 rated now anyway and that it encompasses the SN requirements anyway.




Most of the oils I see in Walmart are both SN+ and d1G2 rated. I don't see what the problem is here?

 

[ka9mnx]

Isn't that what SN + is all about?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
I know, I said that above. The SN and D1G2 oils are the same cost so why SN hasn't adopted the D1G2 requirements when they are needed and GM makes up a pile of the vehicles on the road, when it covers the SN specification as well is beyond me. Especially considering they would offer better protection than SN alone in non D1G2 required applications.

Quote
Especially when price doesn't seem to be a factor (D1G2 oils are no more expensive when compared to SN rated only synthetics) and considering most oils are D1G2 rated now anyway and that it encompasses the SN requirements anyway.


And I replied to that quote earlier, LOL. You are welcome to go back and read my response.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Isn't that what SN + is all about?


Yes, I've noted that a few times now, that SN Plus includes testing for LSPI.

 

[njohnson]

The API does set the minimum standards. So, good synthetic oils, such as, Mobil 1, Pennzoil PP..etc.. should be able to exceed those standards, no problem.

This is why I am chuckling over the newer marketing of Amsoil for the Signature Series. For years Amsoil has said some of the standards are minimum standards and they formulate their products to exceed these standards. Now, they are saying the Signature Series "provides 75% more engine protection against horsepower loss and wear than required by a leading industry standard*"

The "leading industry standard" Amsoil is talking about is the API SN specification.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by StevieC
I know, I said that above. The SN and D1G2 oils are the same cost so why SN hasn't adopted the D1G2 requirements when they are needed and GM makes up a pile of the vehicles on the road, when it covers the SN specification as well is beyond me. Especially considering they would offer better protection than SN alone in non D1G2 required applications.

Quote
Especially when price doesn't seem to be a factor (D1G2 oils are no more expensive when compared to SN rated only synthetics) and considering most oils are D1G2 rated now anyway and that it encompasses the SN requirements anyway.




Most of the oils I see in Walmart are both SN+ and d1G2 rated. I don't see what the problem is here?

Now they are... But that wasn't the case until fairly recently. My point is that the API is behind and I used D1G2 as an example.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Just because they don't carry the official approval of D1G2 doesn't mean they aren't capable and shouldn't be thought of as that. I posted the e-mail here in which their response was that they didn't want to pay for it but that it meets the requirements. Like M1 not listing MS-6395 because of the nonsense that went on with Chrysler but you and I both know the oil is more than capable of this specification.

That would open up AMSOIL to be easily sued if it weren't true, especially with a technical representatives name attached to that e-mail if something were to go wrong in a D1G2 required application and it was proven to be the fault of the lubricant. Timing chain eating monsters from GM are out there to prove this theory.

Further we would most likely have seen a generalized response from AMSOIL trying to side-step the issue if they were trying to be shady about it or trying to claim something they knew they weren't capable of. Not direct confirmation that would incriminate them in a lawsuit in the form of an e-mail with someones name attached.
We would also see terrible UOA performance here if they weren't capable of their claims and the internet would be full of "they screwed me" stories, but we just don't see that.
As for the calcium issue, that I wasn't aware of I thought it was the oil formulators that figured it out as that is how it came off in other threads here I read. I stand corrected on that one being Toyota that figured it out.

When I looked carefully at AMSOIL Signature Series 5w30 once it claimed d1G2-level LSPI resistance, its own product page said it could not meet the full d1G2 standard because its SA level was too high.
I took this statement at face value and feel that the reputation of this oil as "stout" was probably more important to Amsoil than reaching full d1G2 compliance.
This oil has a number of outstanding properties going by the PDS and I have been tempted many times to just give it a try...doubt that I will ever actually push the button, though.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by zeng
My Asian engines spec'ed sole API SL/SM.
For a long time, I had been pouring only ACEA A3B4 and C3 oils whilst ignoring sole rated API Sx oils , with good results.



How do your results compair to API?

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by njohnson
The API does set the minimum standards. So, good synthetic oils, such as, Mobil 1, Pennzoil PP..etc.. should be able to exceed those standards, no problem.

This is why I am chuckling over the newer marketing of Amsoil for the Signature Series. For years Amsoil has said some of the standards are minimum standards and they formulate their products to exceed these standards. Now, they are saying the Signature Series "provides 75% more engine protection against horsepower loss and wear than required by a leading industry standard*"

The "leading industry standard" Amsoil is talking about is the API SN specification.


Actually if you read the fine print on AMSOIL's site it defines it as:
Quote
MAXIMUM WEAR PROTECTION
Signature Series provides 75% more engine protection against horsepower loss and wear than required by a leading industry standard. 1

1 - Based on independent testing in the ASTM D6891 test using 0W-20 as worst-case representation. (Usually done with a 30wt oil, but they used a 20wt oil for worst case)

https://www.amsoil.com/lander/new-amsoil-signature-series/


Which, as defined by the ASTM is::
Quote
This test method was developed to evaluate automotive lubricant's effect on controlling cam lobe wear for overhead valve-train equipped engines with sliding cam followers.

...

This test method measures the ability of crankcase oil to control camshaft lobe wear for spark-ignition engines equipped with an overhead valve-train and sliding cam followers. This test method is designed to simulate extended engine idling vehicle operation. The Sequence IVA Test Method uses a Nissan KA24E engine. The primary result is camshaft lobe wear (measured at seven locations around each of the twelve lobes). Secondary results include cam lobe nose wear and measurement of iron wear metal concentration in the used engine oil. Other determinations such as fuel dilution of crankcase oil, non-ferrous wear metal concentrations, and total oil consumption, can be useful in the assessment of the validity of the test results.

https://www.astm.org/Standards/D6891.htm

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by StevieC
I know, I said that above. The SN and D1G2 oils are the same cost so why SN hasn't adopted the D1G2 requirements when they are needed and GM makes up a pile of the vehicles on the road, when it covers the SN specification as well is beyond me. Especially considering they would offer better protection than SN alone in non D1G2 required applications.

Quote
Especially when price doesn't seem to be a factor (D1G2 oils are no more expensive when compared to SN rated only synthetics) and considering most oils are D1G2 rated now anyway and that it encompasses the SN requirements anyway.




Most of the oils I see in Walmart are both SN+ and d1G2 rated. I don't see what the problem is here?

Now they are... But that wasn't the case until fairly recently. My point is that the API is behind and I used D1G2 as an example.


The API is always going to be behind because of the schedule they operate on and the fact that they deal with input from myriad parties, not simply one OEM. When their approval is refreshed, it is cumulative. Whatever improvements have been worked on since the last revision, are then rolled into the new one. OEM approvals, since they are extremely specific and only tied to one party, can be more readily modified and they do not have a set refresh cycle.

Say Toyota, who doesn't have an OEM approval, works with Chevron Oronite to determine a fix for an issue they've observed in their equipment. Chevron then takes that issue and its fix to the API, of which they are a member, and deliberate with other members like XOM/SOPUS/Infineum to integrate that update to the API standard. This would then be rolled into the next major release.

So, I wouldn't look at D1G2 as GM leapfrogging the API. API members have been aware of the the LSPI issue since it was discovered and they have been working on rolling in their solution to the API testing protocol as part of SN Plus. These are two separate developments that have likely been running in parallel, GM was simply able to bring about the revision to their approval earlier due to the fact that they are one party.

 

[StevieC]

So why not do away with the API in favour for ACEA and leave it there, then it would be up to OE's to determine the needs and wouldn't then require a second body (API) to catch up?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
So why not do away with the API in favour for ACEA and leave it there, then it would be up to OE's to determine the needs and wouldn't then require a second body (API) to catch up?


And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between Europe and North America. Keep in mind though, as I pointed out earlier, the presence of the ACEA has not deterred OEM's from still coming up with their own testing protocols.

There is a certain flexibility afforded by having your own testing regimen and a distinct level of control not possible in a collaborative setting like the API or ACEA. I don't think it's a bad thing that the oil and chemical companies have a common platform, but it would be a better situation if the automakers were also members. Sort of like a combination of the ACEA and API

 

[StevieC]

As so someone not aware uses an SN only oil because they don't know their are better choices out there and that is sad.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted by d00df00d
Guys, this tool isn't meant for comparing entirely different specs. You could use it compare API SN to API SM, or dexos 1 gen 1 to dexos 1 gen 2, etc. -- but not API to dexos (or API to ACEA, or BMW to Mercedes-Benz, etc.).

Says so right here:



BINGO!