Are all XW-20 and -30 oils API energy conserving?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No.

If you find an Xw-30 oil that carries ACEA A3/B4 spec for example, it will not be energy conserving.

Basically, you need to find a starburst logo or the words "Resource Conserving" on the bottle. If the logo or text is not there, then the oil is most likely not resource conserving.
 
In addition to what Pete said above, there are also some API oils that are not ACEA-rated that are still not energy conserving. An example is some high mileage marketed oils.
 
One example of non energy conserving x-20, x-30 oils would be Redline oils. They are classed as A3 B3/B4.
 
Originally Posted By: 29662
One example of non energy conserving x-20, x-30 oils would be Redline oils.

Correct.

Then there is the whole issue of being officially "resource conserving" or unofficially "resource conserving."

Another words, since Redline oils are not API certified, at best they could only be unofficially "resource conserving."
smile.gif


But I am splitting hair at this point.
 
Correction to my earlier post. Redline 5w-30 is a3 b3/b4. the rest of their xx-20, and xx-30 weights are classed as a5/b5.
 
Originally Posted By: leeharvey418
My point is that choice of oil is pretty far down the list of things that will substantially affect one's fuel economy.


Resource conserving designation is not just about fuel economy.

From http://www.oilspecifications.org/articles/api-sn.php
The Resource Conserving supplemental category requires further properties. The former supplemental category, which was called Energy Conserving required only fuel saving properties from the oil.
Resource Conserving requires further properties like:
emission system protection
turbocharger protection
compatibility with engines operating on ethanol containing fuels, up to E-85
 
I don't want to get into whether E85 actually conserves energy or not... and if the oil is supposed to be good for emissions control equipment and turbochargers, then say that.

To call it 'resource conserving' is playing on the buyer's sense of environmental guilt. That's why I say it's a marketing term.
 
Originally Posted By: leeharvey418
To call it 'resource conserving' is playing on the buyer's sense of environmental guilt. That's why I say it's a marketing term.

What term would you propose instead?
 
How about something original and catchy... Maybe 'Deck-Sous'?

Kidding.

But seriously, a unique brand name (like Dexos) or test specification would be just as good without making it sound like they're trying to fool the consumer into thinking they're going to see a real increase in fuel economy by using that oil.
 
Originally Posted By: leeharvey418
or test specification would be just as good

Isn't that basically what ILSAC GF-5 is, among other things?
 
That's exactly what ILSAC GF-5 is.

Honestly, I just like to gripe about people in marketing. And if you can't be a grumpy old man on the interwebs, then where can you be one?
 
Originally Posted By: leeharvey418
Honestly, I just like to gripe about people in marketing.

grin2.gif


That makes two of us.

My wife's in marketing, and even she can't tolerate most of the ads these days.
 
Originally Posted By: leeharvey418
My point is that choice of oil is pretty far down the list of things that will substantially affect one's fuel economy.


NHTSA rank energy conerving oils at number one on their decision making tree.

Due to "cost" to the consumer on original installation, and ability to be installed without redesign, and backspecced.

Backsliding rules mean that if a vehicle is certified with such an oil, they must try to ensure that the customer remains using it.

I agree with you on the size of what's going to affect an individual's fuel bill, but the regulators like it because it's one size fits all, even if an individual can't measure it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top