ACEA A3/B3-B4 for the win. IIRC the most stringent of all to meet.
API standards inadequate?
- Thread starter larrymoencurly
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by 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.
better is relative and related to vehicle choice.
For example in a pentastar v6 its not very important... pretty much any api SN oil is fine. I preferred a full syn 5w20.
say you trade in your pentastar equipped jeep for the new 2.0T powered one..
All of a sudden you need better oil. This is addressed by the owners manual and in this specific case requiring chrysler ms-13340.
Of which Pennzoil platinum is nearly the only oil available currently.
Now since PP is better in the 2.0t engine, is it better in the pentastar? I'd have to say probably not but it doesnt hurt anything.
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.
better is relative and related to vehicle choice.
For example in a pentastar v6 its not very important... pretty much any api SN oil is fine. I preferred a full syn 5w20.
say you trade in your pentastar equipped jeep for the new 2.0T powered one..
All of a sudden you need better oil. This is addressed by the owners manual and in this specific case requiring chrysler ms-13340.
Of which Pennzoil platinum is nearly the only oil available currently.
Now since PP is better in the 2.0t engine, is it better in the pentastar? I'd have to say probably not but it doesnt hurt anything.
IMO API specs ARE adequate for what they're designed to do which is protect gasoline engines.
Most ACEA oils actually start out as API gasoline oils. The ACEA gasoline specs contain engine tests that are cribbed straight from API. Most API oils work for ACEA gasoline provided you adjust for 13% max Noack, KO30 stay-in-grade shear & seals.
The things about ACEA oils (& most of the Euro OEM oils) is that they're always designed to be dual use & usable in BOTH gasoline & diesel engines. So you take the Noack/Shear/Seals adjusted API oil, test it on the Diesel tests & where it fails, fill in the gaps. Usually this means adding a bit more ashless for diesel deposit control & soot handling. This in turn makes the gasoline performance a bit better (but it was pretty good in the base case).
So provided you only use oils in a gasoline engine, API oils are adequate with ACEA oils only being marginally better.
Most ACEA oils actually start out as API gasoline oils. The ACEA gasoline specs contain engine tests that are cribbed straight from API. Most API oils work for ACEA gasoline provided you adjust for 13% max Noack, KO30 stay-in-grade shear & seals.
The things about ACEA oils (& most of the Euro OEM oils) is that they're always designed to be dual use & usable in BOTH gasoline & diesel engines. So you take the Noack/Shear/Seals adjusted API oil, test it on the Diesel tests & where it fails, fill in the gaps. Usually this means adding a bit more ashless for diesel deposit control & soot handling. This in turn makes the gasoline performance a bit better (but it was pretty good in the base case).
So provided you only use oils in a gasoline engine, API oils are adequate with ACEA oils only being marginally better.
API sets the minimum standards across the board, with input from OEMs and oil/additive companies.
When an OEM has a problem, they lobby the API to include a test for that issue in the next round of approvals.
The API working groups have to sift through ALL of these, the OEMs have to demonstrate that they have a test for the issue that's repeatable and can be completed relatively quickly and inexpensively...the test is evaluated, then included/excluded.
It's a prcess that takes time, and is always raising the bar.
OEMs may not get their test included for whatever reason, so then set up their own "go it alone" standards...they all have them.
Per the other threads...they have an ENGINEERING problem, that they wish to fix with lubricant specification.
When an OEM has a problem, they lobby the API to include a test for that issue in the next round of approvals.
The API working groups have to sift through ALL of these, the OEMs have to demonstrate that they have a test for the issue that's repeatable and can be completed relatively quickly and inexpensively...the test is evaluated, then included/excluded.
It's a prcess that takes time, and is always raising the bar.
OEMs may not get their test included for whatever reason, so then set up their own "go it alone" standards...they all have them.
Per the other threads...they have an ENGINEERING problem, that they wish to fix with lubricant specification.
Originally Posted by 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
And EVERY API certified oil beats the benchmark handsomely also...the ravenol in the other thead is API certified, and 76% better than the standard.
A Castrol formulator on the board stated that they won't even submit an oil for certification unless they beat the standard by 60% as their internal benchmark.
Just because it's the MINIMUM standard doesn't mean that the certified oils don't beat it.
The claim that certification neuters oils is baloney...
edit...here's my pull apart of that advertorial claims sheet
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...699/re-its-amsoil-not-amsoil#Post4923699
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
And EVERY API certified oil beats the benchmark handsomely also...the ravenol in the other thead is API certified, and 76% better than the standard.
A Castrol formulator on the board stated that they won't even submit an oil for certification unless they beat the standard by 60% as their internal benchmark.
Just because it's the MINIMUM standard doesn't mean that the certified oils don't beat it.
The claim that certification neuters oils is baloney...
edit...here's my pull apart of that advertorial claims sheet
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...699/re-its-amsoil-not-amsoil#Post4923699
Last edited:
He was making a claim that it referred to API SN in general, and I corrected him by telling him they defined what they meant using an ASTM test method only and that is what they were referring to in their claim.
Further I never said that other oils didn't meet or beat this, where did I say that?
As per usual you are reading too far into it again because you are peeved with me in other threads and hold a grudge.
Further I never said that other oils didn't meet or beat this, where did I say that?
As per usual you are reading too far into it again because you are peeved with me in other threads and hold a grudge.
Last edited:
Come on StevieC. let it go. I like you. Keep it that way...
Dexos 2 is for GM cars only; no other auto maker's cars need dexos anything. It is an expensive licensing scheme at best, at worst it casts doubt on GM ability to build engines. Funny that the Duramax GM engines are not recommended to use GM's own newest (diesel) standard, dexos 2 . Funniest thing here is when Ford owners run out and buy dexos 1 gen 2 oil.
The Gen 1 Toyota Tundra is close to if not the most reliable vehicle on the planet, they were made in model years 2000 - 2006 only. They don't need 2018 unicorn tears in the crankcase either. Mine only requires API SJ motor oil. An SN oil is more than adequate.
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Toyota_Tundra.html
The Gen 1 Toyota Tundra is close to if not the most reliable vehicle on the planet, they were made in model years 2000 - 2006 only. They don't need 2018 unicorn tears in the crankcase either. Mine only requires API SJ motor oil. An SN oil is more than adequate.
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Toyota_Tundra.html
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
Most ACEA oils actually start out as API gasoline oils. The ACEA gasoline specs contain engine tests that are cribbed straight from API. Most API oils work for ACEA gasoline provided you adjust for 13% max Noack, KO30 stay-in-grade shear & seals.
The ACEA E series, too, make mention of the current API C spec as the base building block, with tweaks of, among other things, TBN and phosphorus, as the case may be.
Most ACEA oils actually start out as API gasoline oils. The ACEA gasoline specs contain engine tests that are cribbed straight from API. Most API oils work for ACEA gasoline provided you adjust for 13% max Noack, KO30 stay-in-grade shear & seals.
The ACEA E series, too, make mention of the current API C spec as the base building block, with tweaks of, among other things, TBN and phosphorus, as the case may be.
Originally Posted by wdn
Funniest thing here is when Ford owners run out and buy dexos 1 gen 2 oil.
Why? We're getting a superior oil with D1G2 for the same price as a noncertified oil.
Funniest thing here is when Ford owners run out and buy dexos 1 gen 2 oil.
Why? We're getting a superior oil with D1G2 for the same price as a noncertified oil.
Originally Posted by rsalan
Originally Posted by wdn
Funniest thing here is when Ford owners run out and buy dexos 1 gen 2 oil.
Why? We're getting a superior oil with D1G2 for the same price as a noncertified oil.
I agree. Running a d1G2 and SN+ oil no matter which brand of vehicle it is gives you assurance of a good spec. Plus, it's easy since most oils have gone to this spec
Originally Posted by wdn
Funniest thing here is when Ford owners run out and buy dexos 1 gen 2 oil.
Why? We're getting a superior oil with D1G2 for the same price as a noncertified oil.
I agree. Running a d1G2 and SN+ oil no matter which brand of vehicle it is gives you assurance of a good spec. Plus, it's easy since most oils have gone to this spec
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Come on StevieC. let it go. I like you. Keep it that way...
It's a discussion. Don't read it if you don't want to.
Originally Posted by wdn
Dexos 2 is for GM cars only; no other auto maker's cars need dexos anything. It is an expensive licensing scheme at best, at worst it casts doubt on GM ability to build engines. Funny that the Duramax GM engines are not recommended to use GM's own newest (diesel) standard, dexos 2 . Funniest thing here is when Ford owners run out and buy dexos 1 gen 2 oil.
The Gen 1 Toyota Tundra is close to if not the most reliable vehicle on the planet, they were made in model years 2000 - 2006 only. They don't need 2018 unicorn tears in the crankcase either. Mine only requires API SJ motor oil. An SN oil is more than adequate.
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Toyota_Tundra.html
They can benefit from it though by having increased wear protection and superior cleanliness over SN even if the tool comparing them isn't 100% accurate it still leaps and bounds better. This board is all about "the best" and not about "good enough" because it isn't full of average Joe consumers that could care less, it's full of enthusiasts and fanatics.
Come on StevieC. let it go. I like you. Keep it that way...
It's a discussion. Don't read it if you don't want to.
Originally Posted by wdn
Dexos 2 is for GM cars only; no other auto maker's cars need dexos anything. It is an expensive licensing scheme at best, at worst it casts doubt on GM ability to build engines. Funny that the Duramax GM engines are not recommended to use GM's own newest (diesel) standard, dexos 2 . Funniest thing here is when Ford owners run out and buy dexos 1 gen 2 oil.
The Gen 1 Toyota Tundra is close to if not the most reliable vehicle on the planet, they were made in model years 2000 - 2006 only. They don't need 2018 unicorn tears in the crankcase either. Mine only requires API SJ motor oil. An SN oil is more than adequate.
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Toyota_Tundra.html
They can benefit from it though by having increased wear protection and superior cleanliness over SN even if the tool comparing them isn't 100% accurate it still leaps and bounds better. This board is all about "the best" and not about "good enough" because it isn't full of average Joe consumers that could care less, it's full of enthusiasts and fanatics.
Last edited:
Also, dexos2 is going to be found in concert with other specifications. You're probably going to find it with C3 and LL-04, among others. It's just like how you're not going to find dexos1 as the only spec on a jug of oil. It's going to be in conjunction with SN/GF-5 and probably Ford and Chrysler specs and even A5/B5.
There are SN oils that don't carry the Dexos 1 spec and that was my point is all.
Last edited:
There are some attractive engine oils that do not carry the Dexos due to viscosity and don't get to be Dexos cert, one is Castrol magnatec 10w30.
I do find the d1gen2 oils to be great though for reasons already stated in this thread.
But if the only reason one oil over another
Doesn't meet Dexos is the 10w, it may not preclude me from choosing the non Dexos oil in this case or jumping up to an ACEA A3/b3 which is just a thicker API oil. With many certs that may be tougher than d1g2.
I personally find it to be a loss for us that ILSAC limitations can be applied to 30wts and below to display SN.
We all know what the starburst indicates, and what it absence could mean as well.
I do find the d1gen2 oils to be great though for reasons already stated in this thread.
But if the only reason one oil over another
Doesn't meet Dexos is the 10w, it may not preclude me from choosing the non Dexos oil in this case or jumping up to an ACEA A3/b3 which is just a thicker API oil. With many certs that may be tougher than d1g2.
I personally find it to be a loss for us that ILSAC limitations can be applied to 30wts and below to display SN.
We all know what the starburst indicates, and what it absence could mean as well.
Originally Posted by StevieC
He was making a claim that it referred to API SN in general, and I corrected him by telling him they defined what they meant using an ASTM test method only and that is what they were referring to in their claim.
Further I never said that other oils didn't meet or beat this, where did I say that?
As per usual you are reading too far into it again because you are peeved with me in other threads and hold a grudge.
You were the one providing thebait hyperbole to provide your flavour to the thread...
Originally Posted by 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?
Pray tell what "too far" I was reading into your points (multiple) in this thread ?
BTW, were you around to remember these tests ?
https://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html
https://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html
He was making a claim that it referred to API SN in general, and I corrected him by telling him they defined what they meant using an ASTM test method only and that is what they were referring to in their claim.
Further I never said that other oils didn't meet or beat this, where did I say that?
As per usual you are reading too far into it again because you are peeved with me in other threads and hold a grudge.
You were the one providing the
Originally Posted by 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?
Pray tell what "too far" I was reading into your points (multiple) in this thread ?
BTW, were you around to remember these tests ?
https://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html
https://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
What does Lubrizol know about anything?
Isn't Lubrizol the biggest supplier of additives used by most of the lubrication oil companies? If it was Amsoil making those claims i'd be much more skeptical of their validity.
What does Lubrizol know about anything?
Isn't Lubrizol the biggest supplier of additives used by most of the lubrication oil companies? If it was Amsoil making those claims i'd be much more skeptical of their validity.
If the manufacturer states API is the standard then its good enough. Either the engine is protected or not.
- Status
Similar threads
