Difference between M1 0w30 afe and 0w30 esp?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,714
Location
Upper Midwest
Thank you for clarifying that. Youd also be interested to know your vw508 oil has a tracer dye (not a color dye) in it to identify it as a vw508 oil
And apparently a tracer element.

But you know why, right? It is to identify misuse of the oil which VW has already explained. The oil is not approved for use in those engines where it is not explicitly stated (no back specification) since the HT/HS is too low for those engines and may cause damage. The tracers are there to detect improper use in engines where damage can occur, not to ensure its use in those engines for where it is listed. VW explained that when the oil came onto the market. People often get this backwards.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
8,739
Location
Atlanta,GA
That is incorrect as far as what the manual states.

No the alfa romeo manual does not say "...an oil that prevents oil damage."

Let me post it again.

It says you must use an sn plus oil. Not just any quality oil.

View attachment 128415


Additionally 4 of my audis state the SPECIFIC spec must be used to avoid engine damage and warranty denial. The manual specifically states you must use the oil on the engine compartment oil requirement sticker. If you look on your oil requirement sticker you will see ONE vw certification. I dont know of a manual that specs vw508 that says ( or vw504) in it. That wouldn't even be using the required viscosity in the manual.


And yes my Corvette manual says you must use dexos 2. It doesn't say "or any other quality oil"

Incorrect. There is no "must", "only", "will" or "required". Keywords are "recommended" and "can".

What Alpha Romeo is saying is that they're concerned over LSPI so they suggest an oil which is SN+ or equivalent otherwise if you have a LSPI event which damages your engine they may not warranty the repair. This is typical scare tactic wording.

Magnusson and Moss Act prevent automakers from requiring you use XYZ for warranty coverage because they would otherwise have to provide it for free.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
5,284
Location
Parts Unknown
Go to Toyota's UK or Ireland website and check on the oil recommendation for your Camry's engine over there.

Good chance that it will recommend an ACEA C3 oil in a 30 weight.
It doesn't.

1669749674182.jpg


1669749742791.jpg
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
9,471
Incorrect. There is no "must", "only", "will" or "required". Keywords are "recommended" and "can".

What Alpha Romeo is saying is that they're concerned over LSPI so they suggest an oil which is SN+ or equivalent otherwise if you have a LSPI event which damages your engine they may not warranty the repair. This is typical scare tactic wording.

Magnusson and Moss Act prevent automakers from requiring you use XYZ for warranty coverage because they would otherwise have to provide it for free.
^^^^ Correct ^^^^ and has been explained in at least 4 different ways, but it still has not sunk in...
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2021
Messages
94
Incorrect. There is no "must", "only", "will" or "required". Keywords are "recommended" and "can".

What Alpha Romeo is saying is that they're concerned over LSPI so they suggest an oil which is SN+ or equivalent otherwise if you have a LSPI event which damages your engine they may not warranty the repair. This is typical scare tactic wording.

Magnusson and Moss Act prevent automakers from requiring you use XYZ for warranty coverage because they would otherwise have to provide it for free.

Do i need to circle the word required again. Its there.

If a manufacturer says to use an oil and they will not be covering any damages if you don't use that oil that's really all anyone needs to know.

You're absolutely right they "recommend" that oil so vehemently that they put in big bold letters that it may cause damage not using it and that damage won't be covered by warranty.


Now most of us familiar with the English language know you are not going to say using a different oil "absolutely will" cause damage... because it may not. You could put 50 weight oil in it and it may run 200k miles.

So they correctly state it "may" cause damage.

And if it does cause damage theyre not covering it.

Period.

And they absolutely do check receipts to make sure the correct oil was used.


But sure put whatever oil you want in the car that doesn't meet warranty book specs then try to get the engine replaced under warranty submitting receipts for a non specced oil. I think we all know how that works out. Ive seen these claims denied dozens of times in my history working with manufacturers and dealers.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,937
Location
Ontario, Canada
???

View attachment 128462


Also you serm to have forgotten your claim that you vw says you can use both certifications of oil from vw508 to vw504. Can you post your oil requirement sticker under your hood that says that. Youd have the only vw that has that.
Just going to lob this from the bleachers as this whole exchange strikes me as being akin to trying to pee up a tree, but it would appear the disconnect is the result of parsing individual segments of statements (like what is highlighted in red) and not the actual statement in its entirety here.

It dumbs down to two linked parameters, which, by themselves, are pretty straightforward:
1. Using a lubricant that does not meet SN Plus or an equivalent specification CAN cause damage.

So, not WILL cause damage, but it CAN cause damage. Like, if you put in City Star, there's a possibility that damage could arise from using this lubricant. Pretty straight forward.

2. If you proceed with #1; if you use a lubricant that does not meet the SN Plus or equivalent specification, and it DOES cause damage, this may not be covered by the vehicle warranty.

Now, the dealer/manufacturer would need to prove that the use of the non-spec product was the source of the damage in order to deny warranty. If you were running Redline and your timing chain guide disintegrated, resulting in a warranty claim, the dealer and OEM would first need a reason to try and point a finger at the oil for causing this failure. This could be further complicated by existing TSB's for this issue (like Ford had for the Modular) suggesting that this is a materials/QC issue.

On the other hand, if you were running ND30 and your engine seized due to sludge, they've got very good grounds to blame the non-spec lubricant selection and deny coverage.

Ultimately, if you run City Star, Redline, SynLube, AMSOIL SS, HPL, ND30...etc you are not voiding your warranty. However, you may be setting the stage for coverage denial if the product is of insufficient quality (City Star, Synlube, ND30) in the event that there is an issue as a result of that product's use that can be easily identified by the dealer/OEM.

If BMW tells you to use LL-01 and you use SuperTech conventional 5W-30 and the engine sludges up, BMW has legitimate grounds to deny you coverage. On the other hand, if you are using AMSOIL and it breaks a valve spring, they don't.

If you don't want to deal with the potential headache, it's always easiest to just follow the OEM recommendations.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
9,471
As an aside, did we ever determine the difference between AFE and ESP? For example, is the additive pack more robust and the TBN higher in ESP versus AFE? I have 1 OC of VEP remaining and am looking for a new, readily available, non-boutique oil and at a glance 0W-30 ESP would be a good choice.
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2021
Messages
94
Just going to lob this from the bleachers as this whole exchange strikes me as being akin to trying to pee up a tree, but it would appear the disconnect is the result of parsing individual segments of statements (like what is highlighted in red) and not the actual statement in its entirety here.

It dumbs down to two linked parameters, which, by themselves, are pretty straightforward:
1. Using a lubricant that does not meet SN Plus or an equivalent specification CAN cause damage.

So, not WILL cause damage, but it CAN cause damage. Like, if you put in City Star, there's a possibility that damage could arise from using this lubricant. Pretty straight forward.

2. If you proceed with #1; if you use a lubricant that does not meet the SN Plus or equivalent specification, and it DOES cause damage, this may not be covered by the vehicle warranty.

Now, the dealer/manufacturer would need to prove that the use of the non-spec product was the source of the damage in order to deny warranty. If you were running Redline and your timing chain guide disintegrated, resulting in a warranty claim, the dealer and OEM would first need a reason to try and point a finger at the oil for causing this failure. This could be further complicated by existing TSB's for this issue (like Ford had for the Modular) suggesting that this is a materials/QC issue.

On the other hand, if you were running ND30 and your engine seized due to sludge, they've got very good grounds to blame the non-spec lubricant selection and deny coverage.

Ultimately, if you run City Star, Redline, SynLube, AMSOIL SS, HPL, ND30...etc you are not voiding your warranty. However, you may be setting the stage for coverage denial if the product is of insufficient quality (City Star, Synlube, ND30) in the event that there is an issue as a result of that product's use that can be easily identified by the dealer/OEM.

If BMW tells you to use LL-01 and you use SuperTech conventional 5W-30 and the engine sludges up, BMW has legitimate grounds to deny you coverage. On the other hand, if you are using AMSOIL and it breaks a valve spring, they don't.

If you don't want to deal with the potential headache, it's always easiest to just follow the OEM recommendations.


Absolutely correct and mirrors what i said on my last post.


As you said if you don't want to deal with a warranty denial headache you use the oem recommended oil that they say if you don't use may result in warranty denial.


As far as the manufacturer having to prove your oil choice caused the fauilure, thats true if you take them to court over the denial. You absolutely do not want to have to do that. Winning a case against manufacturer engineers will not be fun.


The reality can be as simple as providing receipts from a non specced oil and then the manufacturer denies the claim. I've seen this dozens of times.

You then contact the manufacturers customer care, the dealership management, the ftc, ehe bbb, have your lawyer write a letter and hope they reverse their decision.

If they dont you're going to court. Good luck
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
5,284
Location
Parts Unknown
Incorrect. There is no "must", "only", "will" or "required". Keywords are "recommended" and "can".

What Alpha Romeo is saying is that they're concerned over LSPI so they suggest an oil which is SN+ or equivalent otherwise if you have a LSPI event which damages your engine they may not warranty the repair. This is typical scare tactic wording.

Magnusson and Moss Act prevent automakers from requiring you use XYZ for warranty coverage because they would otherwise have to provide it for free.
I've heard that interpretation stated over the years and has become treated as fact, which I think spread by SEMA a number of years ago

Here's the law:


That being said... why hasn't anyone sued the automotive manufacturers for not providing free services during the entire duration of the powertrain warranty?

What it really means is an automaker cannot require you to use the automaker's (say) branded oil for warranty coverage. If there are aftermarket oils that meet the automaker's specifications, then automakers are in the clear and the "provided for free" claim is no longer valid....otherwise, in accordance to that interpretation in bold, servicing during the powertrain warranty period should be provided for free, and why hasn't someone sued an automaker yet?

So.. why haven't you used some off-the-shelf API oil on your 435i instead of using an oil (that should be provided for free) that meets BMW specifications?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
8,739
Location
Atlanta,GA
I've heard that interpretation stated over the years and has become treated as fact.

Here's the law:


That being said... why hasn't anyone sued the automotive manufacturers for not providing free services during the entire duration of the powertrain warranty?

What it really means is an automaker cannot require you to use the automaker's (say) branded oil for warranty coverage. If there are aftermarket oils that meet the automaker's specifications, then automakers are in the clear and the "provided for free" claim is no longer valid.
Here's the specific verbiage within the M&M.

"

(c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission​

No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if—

(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and

(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest."

As for your question. Automakers don't require nor can they require that they and only they service your vehicle. Dealer "Add on" and extended warranties don't have to adhere to the same requirements under M&M.

This is why there's only anecdotal evidence that some automaker failed to honor a factory warranty when something like an OE oil filter failed.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,714
Location
Upper Midwest
What makes it interesting is that by using a 504 00 oil in my Tiguan rather than 508 00 I’m helping to prevent failure and I’m assisting the manufacturer in avoiding a warranty claim due to engine damage from the oil. Apparently the VW dealer we purchased the vehicle from understands that.

Again it’s about failure and damage.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
8,739
Location
Atlanta,GA
Do i need to circle the word required again. Its there.

If a manufacturer says to use an oil and they will not be covering any damages if you don't use that oil that's really all anyone needs to know.

You're absolutely right they "recommend" that oil so vehemently that they put in big bold letters that it may cause damage not using it and that damage won't be covered by warranty.


Now most of us familiar with the English language know you are not going to say using a different oil "absolutely will" cause damage... because it may not. You could put 50 weight oil in it and it may run 200k miles.

So they correctly state it "may" cause damage.

And if it does cause damage theyre not covering it.

Period.

And they absolutely do check receipts to make sure the correct oil was used.


But sure put whatever oil you want in the car that doesn't meet warranty book specs then try to get the engine replaced under warranty submitting receipts for a non specced oil. I think we all know how that works out. Ive seen these claims denied dozens of times in my history working with manufacturers and dealers.
Yes, you do need to circle the word "required" in the screen print from MOPAR.
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2021
Messages
94
I've heard that interpretation stated over the years and has become treated as fact, which I think spread by SEMA a number of years ago

Here's the law:


That being said... why hasn't anyone sued the automotive manufacturers for not providing free services during the entire duration of the powertrain warranty?

What it really means is an automaker cannot require you to use the automaker's (say) branded oil for warranty coverage. If there are aftermarket oils that meet the automaker's specifications, then automakers are in the clear and the "provided for free" claim is no longer valid....otherwise, in accordance to that interpretation in bold, servicing during the powertrain warranty period should be provided for free, and why hasn't someone sued an automaker yet?


Because the law states they can't require a specific brand. It does not say they can't require a performance standard. The law was designed to prevent monopolies like GM requiring to you only use AC Delco oil in your car then charging 15 per quart for a basic oil. Theres no law against requiring oil quality standards be met.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,714
Location
Upper Midwest
Because the law states they can't require a specific brand. It does not say they can't require a performance standard. The law was designed to prevent monopolies like GM requiring to you only use AC Delco oil in your car then charging 15 per quart for a basic oil. Theres no law against requiring oil quality standards be met.
But apparently there is this unwritten rule against exceeding them.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
5,284
Location
Parts Unknown
Because the law states they can't require a specific brand. It does not say they can't require a performance standard. The law was designed to prevent monopolies like GM requiring to you only use AC Delco oil in your car then charging 15 per quart for a basic oil. Theres no law against requiring oil quality standards be met.
The law, does not state that. I have provided the link to the law.

I have also stated the same thing for the interpretation of the law, which was likely spread by SEMA, as I stated (and you missed)
What it really means is an automaker cannot require you to use the automaker's (say) branded oil for warranty coverage
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
9,471
What it really means is an automaker cannot require you to use the automaker's (say) branded oil for warranty coverage. If there are aftermarket oils that meet the automaker's specifications, then automakers are in the clear and the "provided for free" claim is no longer valid.
My interpretation is that If an OEM has a component that requires a certain specification and that specification is only available within the OEM AND the OEM requires using only that specification to maintain your warranty, then it has to be provided without cost from the OEM.

I have seen this happen with new transmission model where a manufacturer builds a new model for an automobile OEM and the fluid is not in the marketplace yet. With that said, most OEMs have pushed fluid change intervals to the point where by the time it is needed, it will be in the market place.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 16, 2021
Messages
94
The law, does not state that. I have provided the link to the law.

I have also stated the same thing for the interpretation of the law, which was likely spread by SEMA, as I stated (and you missed)
What it really means is an automaker cannot require you to use the automaker's (say) branded oil for warranty coverage


Read it again....

No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if—

(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and

(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest."

As i stated...

The law was designed to prevent monopolies like GM requiring to you only use AC Delco oil in your car then charging 15 per quart for a basic oil. Theres no law against requiring oil quality standards be met.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
5,284
Location
Parts Unknown
My interpretation is that If an OEM has a component that requires a certain specification and that specification is only available within the OEM AND the OEM requires use only that specification to maintain your warranty, then it has to be provided without cost from the OEM.

I have seen this happen with new transmission model where a manufacturer builds a new model for an automobile OEM and the fluid is not in the marketplace yet. With that said, most OEMs have pushed fluid change intervals to the point where by the time it is needed, it will be in the market place.
And that's what I stated.

What it really means is an automaker cannot require you to use the automaker's (say) branded oil for warranty coverage. If there are aftermarket oils that meet the automaker's specifications, then automakers are in the clear and the "provided for free" claim is no longer valid.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
2,626
Location
Vancouver
Read it again....

No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if—

(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and

(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest."

It's pretty obvious the manufacturer specifying a certain requirement is allowed. Otherwise any manufacturer asking for even an API oil be used would not be allowed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top