Originally Posted By: Garak
My wording wasn't terribly elegant, much like Shell's sheets.
I have complete confidence in what Shell sells. If they say it meets SL standards or SJ, or shows a Donut, or had some mishmash of wording stating it meets those older phosphorous levels but SN wear protection, I'd trust it. I've previously bought non-certified Shell high mileage products with complete confidence and would still do so - in fact, I want to, namely unlicensed Quaker State Defy in a 5w-30 grade, but Shell isn't being cooperative with that one, insisting upon having an SN/GF-5 license.
To word it correctly and rigorously, here is what I should have stated. SL is still a current specification. Because we're in North America, and we have so many ILSAC lubricants, I didn't make the distinction carefully. Now, I hope you formulators and Tom_NJ, who know the API regime more than I do, will let me know if I'm wrong here and correct me as needed:
Let's say, hypothetically, that Castrol 0w-30 A3/B4 SL is completely reformulated and requires API recertification. Because it's a 30 grade, and isn't seeking to be a dual-rated HDEO by API rules, it cannot by SN due to exceeding phosphorus limits. Accordingly, it would have to be recertified SL, and could be so certified. It could be relabelled as it is now, with an API Donut showing SL. Is this correct?
Now, let's say, hypothetically again, that RP wants to change RP HPS 5w-30 from a non-certified lube to having the SL/GF-3 certification of their previous product. Now, let's say they have the correct HTHS (apparently it doesn't, but this is hypothetical) and phosphorus levels to fall within SL/GF-3 for their 5w-30. They could not certify it SL/GF-3, because GF-3 is an obsolete specification, and therefore could not show SL and Resource Conserving within the Donut, and could not show the Starburst for ILSAC certification. Is this correct? They could, however, seek API SL approval, like GC in the example above, right?
Non-ILSAC 30 grades are so uncommon here, and ILSAC 30 grades so common in other parts of the world, that I did not adequately word my point to cover that distinction. As far as I know, I can only buy one 5w-30 A3/B4 readily here. I walk into Walmart or Canadian Tire, and can find about eight examples of SN/GF-5 5w-30 from Shell alone. So, I should make the distinction very clear when when I write about this.
Wow! That's complicated. But here goes...
So first, Edge 0W30 SL A3/B4. This oil, because it meets A3/B4 will, by definition, be a 3.5 min HTHS oil. As such it's very unlikely it would pass the API Fuel Economy test. Looking at the quoted KV100 (it's 12.2 cst) I might also assume this stuff is based on one of the lower SSI Shellvis VII polymers and this would further compound the FE problem. No passing FE test means it can't ever be GF-x so it defaults to SL. I don't think there's any problem selling an API SL 0W30 (ie non-ILSAC) oil in North America as long as it's correctly labelled on the can (ie no Resource Conserving blurb).
There's no Phos level for this oil quoted on the PDS I saw. SL allows upto 1000ppm max. SN on the other hand requires Phosphorus to sit between 600 - 800 ppm. There are two scenarios to consider here. If the existing Edge has 999ppm Phos, then yes, it can never be SN. If they recertified the existing DI/VII system (say in a new 'base oil) then it would have to stay at SL. However if your reformulation stretched to a full on DI reformation (with less ZDDP) then it might make SN. However there's also the possibility that existing 'SL' Edge already meets the SN Phos limits. Making an 800 ppm Phos SL oil is relatively easy and any half decent formulator would have future-proofed the oil by not maxing out the Phos to 1000ppm. It's possible that existing SL Edge fails against SN for another reason (Phos volatility maybe?).
You're right; you can't now certify against GF-3. If RP ever wanted to go down the certification route they would have to aim higher. Having said that, I sort of want to applaud the guys at RP and Amsoil for resisting the push to certification. In my opinion, it's better to have a genuinely good oil rather than one whose sole raison d'être is to jump through a series of complex (and often nonsensical) hoops like some performing poodle.
