API sues cheaters

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: jaj
I thought the reason the "strategically unlicensed" oils were not API approved was chemical, not physical. Excess phosphorus is one example I remember. The pitch is that "our oil performs better because it has (insert secret ingredient here) that prevents it from being approved, unlike the (insert insulting adjective here) oils that the rest of the industry makes" or something like that.


Some companies choose to not meet the API specification because they feel it restricts their ability to design a high performance oil. If they go that route they should not claim the oil meets the API specification. If they claim it meets the API specification except for a specific variation, e.g higher phosphorus, then they should run and pass all of the other requirements for the specification.

Tom NJ

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: jaj
I thought the reason the "strategically unlicensed" oils were not API approved was chemical, not physical. Excess phosphorus is one example I remember. The pitch is that "our oil performs better because it has (insert secret ingredient here) that prevents it from being approved, unlike the (insert insulting adjective here) oils that the rest of the industry makes" or something like that.


These oils are not found on the shelves of a gas station.
These are boutique motor oils.
They are products like some offerings from Amsoil, Red Line and Royal Purple, for example.
Nobody seriously questions the quality of boutique oils, while nobody acclaims the quality of the no-name oils found at some gas stations/convenience stores.
The garbage oils aren't licensed because they can't be, not because their makers choose not to.
Maybe it is because they choose not to, since the oils of which Tom writes could not meet any current API spec, and it isn't just the additive package that makes that so.
More often it's the lack of an additive package.

 

[jaj]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Some companies choose to not meet the API specification because they feel it restricts their ability to design a high performance oil. If they go that route they should not claim the oil meets the API specification. If they claim it meets the API specification except for a specific variation, e.g higher phosphorus, then they should run and pass all of the other requirements for the specification.

Tom NJ


The sales pitch I remember is that "we exceed the API specs rather than merely meeting them." I agree with you: to make that claim, they should have run and passed all of the performance tests that their special additive doesn't preclude them from passing. For reputable companies, and I'm thinking Amsoil and Redline, I'd be surprised if they haven't done the testing to back up their product performance claims. It's just that there's no external body like the API or ACEA that will (or that can) certify the adequacy and accuracy of the testing, even if it's adequate and accurate.

 

[jaj]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
These oils are not found on the shelves of a gas station.
These are boutique motor oils.
They are products like some offerings from Amsoil, Red Line and Royal Purple, for example.
Nobody seriously questions the quality of boutique oils, while nobody acclaims the quality of the no-name oils found at some gas stations/convenience stores.
The garbage oils aren't licensed because they can't be, not because their makers choose not to.
Maybe it is because they choose not to, since the oils of which Tom writes could not meet any current API spec, and it isn't just the additive package that makes that so.
More often it's the lack of an additive package.


I understand your point, and I agree. It's just that for people who don't know the difference, a bottle of Amsoil with no API symbol is indistinguishable from any other oil with no API symbol. Sadly, there's no independent quality mark (like API or ACEA) that vouches for the claims on the label and affirms to the consumer that they're real and not just made up. I'm not slagging Amsoil here, to be clear, I'm just saying that to the uninitiated, their marketing is just as unbelievable as anyone else's. It's only once you know the products (through the people that sell them) that you can believe the claims.

 

[doitmyself]

Tom,

what about respectable companies like John Deere that market a well regarded oil (PLus 50 II), but don't API license them? I can't imagine their oil is much different than any other CJ oil or that they have ingredient levels that would not qualify them for API.

Are they just penny pinchers regarding the API fees?

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: doitmyself
Tom,

what about respectable companies like John Deere that market a well regarded oil (PLus 50 II), but don't API license them? I can't imagine their oil is much different than any other CJ oil or that they have ingredient levels that would not qualify them for API.

Are they just penny pinchers regarding the API fees?


IMO, the pennies to API certify are too few to pinch. I don't know why Deere chooses not to certify.

Tom NJ

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: doitmyself
Are they just penny pinchers regarding the API fees?


My guess, and it's only a guess, is that they're catering to the power equipment niche market. A lot of them (Kubota comes to mind) have rather weird engine oil requirements, relying on superceded API specifications.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
Tom,

what about respectable companies like John Deere that market a well regarded oil (PLus 50 II), but don't API license them? I can't imagine their oil is much different than any other CJ oil or that they have ingredient levels that would not qualify them for API.

Are they just penny pinchers regarding the API fees?


IMO, the pennies to API certify are too few to pinch. I don't know why Deere chooses not to certify.

Tom NJ


I don't understand why Amsoil doesn't certify all their products either. A mistake IMO.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint


I don't understand why Amsoil doesn't certify all their products either. A mistake IMO.


This has been beat to death. Easy answer so it will be remembered: Amsoil exceeds API and does not want it's top tier oils tied to the API.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: demarpaint


I don't understand why Amsoil doesn't certify all their products either. A mistake IMO.


This has been beat to death. Easy answer so it will be remembered: Amsoil exceeds API and does not want it's top tier oils tied to the API.


And that saves them money. I'm pretty sure many of the oils wearing the API logo exceed the spec too.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: demarpaint


I don't understand why Amsoil doesn't certify all their products either. A mistake IMO.


This has been beat to death. Easy answer so it will be remembered: Amsoil exceeds API and does not want it's top tier oils tied to the API.


And that saves them money too.


Very true, but they now pay for, what 10+ oils. I think Amsoil is up front about the whole API thing, so to include them in a "API sues cheaters" thread. Is well....I dunno....not right.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: demarpaint


I don't understand why Amsoil doesn't certify all their products either. A mistake IMO.


This has been beat to death. Easy answer so it will be remembered: Amsoil exceeds API and does not want it's top tier oils tied to the API.


And that saves them money too.


Very true, but they now pay for, what 10+ oils. I think Amsoil is up front about the whole API thing, so to include them in a "API sues cheaters" thread. Is well....I dunno....not right.


The good news is I never called them cheaters.

Good at marketing and smart at making the system work for them. Oh and they make a good product too.

 

[fdcg27]

I think we should draw a distinction here.
The average buyer of Amsoil's higher end oils knows what they're paying for and understands that the oils are formulated to serve long drains with good performance and not to any API spec.
It might not be especially good practice to run, say, SSO on 5K drains, but that is not the intended use of the oil, and the average user of SSO understands that.
If the additive package of SSO precludes API certification, the total additive amounts are probably no higher over a long OCI than they would be on two or three changes using an API SM or SN.
Nobody should seriously question the quality of Amsoil oils, whether a given blend carries an API donut or not.
API is hardly the be-all, end-all in defining oil performance, which is why we have specs from various manufacturers which greatly expand upon any current API spec.
Then there are the no-name oils offered to mainly lower income folks at the local gas station/convenience store.
They claim to meet or exceed some API spec, but according to PQIA's testing, they are not suitable for use in any engine.
Big difference.

 

[jaj]

I think this thread is about the API defending the value of its licensing program. They're going after companies that claim to meet API specs but that don't have API's authorization to make that claim.

Whether the product in the unauthorized bottle works properly or not isn't the issue, nor is the question of whether products that don't claim API compliance are any good.

That said, the question that arises now that API is actually defending its licensing program is whether they will pursue companies that claim "suitable for use where API xxx is called for" or that make claims of "better than API". At its core, that indirect but specific use of API's specifications is basically the same "unfair trading on API's goodwill" issue that's behind the current legal actions. It'll be interesting. If they do so, the cure will be for Amsoil, Red Line and others to completely remove all references to API specs from their labels and marketing materials unless the product is actually API licensed.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: jaj
It'll be interesting. If they do so, the cure will be for Amsoil, Red Line and others to completely remove all references to API specs from their labels and marketing materials unless the product is actually API licensed.


That's what I'd like to see, if you want to play you have to pay, otherwise make no ref to API specs at all. They could say "Extensively tested in our labs", or something along those lines. The problem is that isn't as good a sell as "Exceeds API specs". These oil companies know that too.

 

[LargeCarManX2]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
The fee for getting a license to use an API certification mark is small,

What is their fee structure? Is it a one-time flat fee per each oil and grade? Or is it on a per each bottle sold basis (volume based)?



Current license fee is $1,250 per year plus 0.2 cents per gallon (1/20 of one cent per quart) only on volume after the first million gallons. Not exactly a prohibitive fee!

Tom NJ


At one point in time, Amsoil said this....

The cost for running a test program for a single passenger car motor oil formulation is from $125,000 to $300,000, depending on if the formula passes the tests the first time through, or if it requires multiple test runs or formula modifications to achieve a passing average.


Note: That amount goes to $275,000 to $500,000 for a Heavy Duty Diesel licensing program on a specific formula.

Once that testing is complete and the formula has passed all of the minimum requirements, it can be licensed for $825 per year for non-members and $625 per year for members. There is also a small royalty fee per gallon sold for all gallons over one million. The length of time between new specifications is now approximately 2 to 3 years, which does not allow a great deal of time to recover testing costs.
To solve this problem, the API should establish base stock interchange guidelines for synthetic basestocks - just as they have for other basestocks - as well as develop interchange guidelines for other components so that manufacturer’s and marketers of synthetic engine oils have an even playing field as it relates to API certification costs.

Summary

API licensing of lubricants is a voluntary process. In a perfect world it should ensure that automobile manufacturers and consumers meet a set of “minimum standards.” What this means is that if a consumer wants a product that just meets minimum specifications, then they should purchase API Licensed products and get exactly what they paid for…minimum performance! In the future, should these standards be raised to a level consistent with AMSOIL's standards for motor oil performance, AMSOIL will consider licensing all oils. For those that feel pressured to use an API licensed product, AMSOIL offers them. It should be noted that AMSOIL API Licensed motor oils are chemically engineered to outperform all other petroleum, semi-synthetic, and synthetic licensed API motor oils. As such, if it is peace of mind you seek, we encourage you to use them:

 

[jaj]

Originally Posted By: LargeCarManX2
...The cost for running a test program for a single passenger car motor oil formulation is from $125,000 to $300,000, depending on if the formula passes the tests the first time through, or if it requires multiple test runs or formula modifications to achieve a passing average.


Note: That amount goes to $275,000 to $500,000 for a Heavy Duty Diesel licensing program on a specific formula.

Once that testing is complete and the formula has passed all of the minimum requirements, it can be licensed for $825 per year for non-members and $625 per year for members. There is also a small royalty fee per gallon sold for all gallons over one million. The length of time between new specifications is now approximately 2 to 3 years, which does not allow a great deal of time to recover testing costs.
To solve this problem, the API should establish base stock interchange guidelines for synthetic basestocks - just as they have for other basestocks - as well as develop interchange guidelines for other components so that manufacturer’s and marketers of synthetic engine oils have an even playing field as it relates to API certification costs.

Summary

API licensing of lubricants is a voluntary process. In a perfect world it should ensure that automobile manufacturers and consumers meet a set of “minimum standards.” What this means is that if a consumer wants a product that just meets minimum specifications, then they should purchase API Licensed products and get exactly what they paid for…minimum performance! In the future, should these standards be raised to a level consistent with AMSOIL's standards for motor oil performance, AMSOIL will consider licensing all oils. For those that feel pressured to use an API licensed product, AMSOIL offers them. It should be noted that AMSOIL API Licensed motor oils are chemically engineered to outperform all other petroleum, semi-synthetic, and synthetic licensed API motor oils. As such, if it is peace of mind you seek, we encourage you to use them.


I'm sure anyone that could draft paragraphs like these could easily reframe them so they didn't refer to the API, it's standards and it's licensees' products without sacrificing the essential obfuscatory rhetoric that makes it so fun to read.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: LargeCarManX2



Summary

API licensing of lubricants is a voluntary process. In a perfect world it should ensure that automobile manufacturers and consumers meet a set of “minimum standards.” What this means is that if a consumer wants a product that just meets minimum specifications, then they should purchase API Licensed products and get exactly what they paid for…minimum performance! In the future, should these standards be raised to a level consistent with AMSOIL's standards for motor oil performance, AMSOIL will consider licensing all oils. For those that feel pressured to use an API licensed product, AMSOIL offers them. It should be noted that AMSOIL API Licensed motor oils are chemically engineered to outperform all other petroleum, semi-synthetic, and synthetic licensed API motor oils. As such, if it is peace of mind you seek, we encourage you to use them:


I love how they hand pick each and every word, LOL. They want you believe that only their API sanctioned products exceed the minumum standards, their competition only meets these minimum standards, clearly making Amsoil the best. Sorry but that's one of the things that turned me off to them. They do buy from XOM don't they? Rant off.

 

[fdcg27]

Amsoil makes some oils with additive packages that would preclude API certification.
These oils are intended for very specific uses, like very long drain intervals.
The UOA section here shows that Amsoil products intended for long drains hold up well in them.
These oils offer performance way beyond any API spec, while having additive levels beyond what any current API spec allows.
They are boutique oils for a niche market, but it is nice that these oils exist.
If I suddenly found myself having to commute three or four times the distance I do now to keep a job or gain a valuable promotion, which is a real possibility, I'd be looking real hard at SSO, backed up with a couple of UOAs.
Amsoil does have considerable long drain interval cred, which many oils claim,but few really match.

 

[jaj]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Amsoil makes some oils with additive packages that would preclude API certification.
These oils are intended for very specific uses, like very long drain intervals.
The UOA section here shows that Amsoil products intended for long drains hold up well in them.
These oils offer performance way beyond any API spec, while having additive levels beyond what any current API spec allows.
They are boutique oils for a niche market, but it is nice that these oils exist.
If I suddenly found myself having to commute three or four times the distance I do now to keep a job or gain a valuable promotion, which is a real possibility, I'd be looking real hard at SSO, backed up with a couple of UOAs.
Amsoil does have considerable long drain interval cred, which many oils claim,but few really match.


Nobody's arguing with you. This thread, however, is about the API and how it's protecting the value of its trademarks. It's not about Amsoil and it's not an attack on Amsoil or its products. They're good; we get that.

At this point in the discussion, we're only referring to Amsoil as one of many companies that may possibly be trespassing on the API's private property by using references to the API, its standards and its licencees in in its advertising and on its product labels without having a license or permission from the API to do so.