Difference between M1 0w30 afe and 0w30 esp?

[Fahrvergnügen]

I was only talking with regard to LSPI. That is something Infineum and other additive companies said, not something I invented.

https://www.infineuminsight.com/en-gb/articles/specification-updates/acea-revisions-coming-soon/

Excerpt:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Sequence IVB stands out as it is not meant to be a direct successor of any particular test but rather to fill the gap the TU3 left behind half a decade ago for a gasoline valvetrain wear test. The Sequence IVB is on Toyota hardware and has been developed for API SP / ILSAC GF-6. There is significant debate in AAA about suitable Sequence IVB limits for the ACEA Sequences. The starting point was to carry over the API SP limits, however, industry data gathered on representative ACEA oils suggest API SP limits are not appropriate as they would exclude about 50% of the tested ACEA lubricants with known good field performance.

The Sequence IX LSPI test is well known in the industry, it was developed on Ford hardware for the API specifications and was first introduced to API SN Plus. Its introduction into A7/B7 and C6 is planned at API SP limits, which is supported by all stakeholders.

The A7/B7 and C6 chain wear requirement is also specified by a test developed on Ford hardware for ILSAC GF-6 - the Sequence X. There are similarities to the Sequence IVB in the sense that the introduction at the proposed API SP limits would rule out 50% of the lubricants represented in the industry data gathering mentioned above. Discussions are ongoing about how to define limits appropriate for ACEA lubricants, which are subject to different chemical constrains than API lubricants. All parties agree with the need for chain wear protection. However, given the fact that gasoline direct injection engines have been the predominate gasoline technology in Europe for almost a decade, questions arise on how much additional protection is needed. One party not being prepared to give any compromise on the limit makes finding a mutually agreeable limit look unlikely.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GM was the first OEM in the world to introduce LSPI oils in 2015 with GM dexos2—three–four years before MB and PSA introduced LSPI oils. API introduced LSPI oils with API SN PLUS in 2018–2019—three–four years before ACEA introduced ACE A7/B7 and ACEA C6 LPSI oils in 2021–2022. That's all I meant by playing catch-up: Euro OEMs and ACEA were three–four years behind US OEMs and API in LSPI.

Now, if you read the excerpt above, things get more interesting:

ACEA decided to adopt API valvetrain and timing-chain wear tests in their ACEA-2021 specification, but it turned out that 50% of the existing ACEA oils failed the API valvetrain test, and another 50% of the existing ACEA oils failed the API timing-chain wear test! Note that most of these oils that failed the API wear tests would carry the "strict" Euro-OEM approvals as well. This should prove to anyone that you cannot make blanket statements such as "Euro oils are always better," "API oils have only the bare-minimum protection and performance," "thicker oils are always better," "more ZDDP is always better," etc. You are comparing apples and oranges when you compare API oils to ACEA/Euro-OEM oils, especially when you look at the silly Lubrizol spec-comparison spider charts, which probably don't mean anything. This comes as a surprise even to me because I didn't expect the ACEA oils to flunk the API valvetrain and timing-chain wear tests so badly, as wear protection is something crucial. What it shows is that there is no such thing as "best oil," and most modern specs these days protect the engines well, and different specs have advantages and disadvantages over each other, which will make an absolute comparison between different specs very difficult if not impossible.

To add, at BMW we can see the engines that people use API oil in and try to avoid the ‘costly’ dealership oil change, or someone like jiffy lube changes oil and uses just any 0w20 or 5w30 in engine and they come to the shop they are so slugged up it’s not even funny. Don’t tell me there isn’t a difference as I have witnessed it. API oil just can’t hang.

 

[Fahrvergnügen]

That is true for the EJ series engine. But not for the FA24DIT engines. I don't think I'd run a 5w40 in an FA. I know it's a thick vs thin thing, but Xw40 just seems excessive unless you’re tracking the car.

I’m not familiar with Subaru at all. I found it odd they use diesel oil and 5w40 but whatever.

 

[TacoFergie]

I’m not familiar with Subaru at all. I found it odd they use diesel oil and 5w40 but whatever.

I can speak to everyones reason. But my thoughts are because many of them beat the everliving crap out of them and Rotella has shown to hold up to the abuse. 10+ years ago Rotella was one of the few 5w40's available on the shelf and it happened to be cheap. Now that there are many other Xw40 choices out there, there are far better choices than Rotella for those wanting an Xw40 for their EJ.

 

[Fahrvergnügen]

I can speak to everyones reason. But my thoughts are because many of them beat the everliving crap out of them and Rotella has shown to hold up to the abuse. 10+ years ago Rotella was one of the few 5w40's available on the shelf and it happened to be cheap. Now that there are many other Xw40 choices out there, there are far better choices than Rotella for those wanting an Xw40 for their EJ.

I would imagine Mobil 1 FS 0w40 would be one?? Or Castrol edge 0w40??

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

I was only talking with regard to LSPI. That is something Infineum and other additive companies said, not something I invented.

https://www.infineuminsight.com/en-gb/articles/specification-updates/acea-revisions-coming-soon/

Excerpt:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Sequence IVB stands out as it is not meant to be a direct successor of any particular test but rather to fill the gap the TU3 left behind half a decade ago for a gasoline valvetrain wear test. The Sequence IVB is on Toyota hardware and has been developed for API SP / ILSAC GF-6. There is significant debate in AAA about suitable Sequence IVB limits for the ACEA Sequences. The starting point was to carry over the API SP limits, however, industry data gathered on representative ACEA oils suggest API SP limits are not appropriate as they would exclude about 50% of the tested ACEA lubricants with known good field performance.

The Sequence IX LSPI test is well known in the industry, it was developed on Ford hardware for the API specifications and was first introduced to API SN Plus. Its introduction into A7/B7 and C6 is planned at API SP limits, which is supported by all stakeholders.

The A7/B7 and C6 chain wear requirement is also specified by a test developed on Ford hardware for ILSAC GF-6 - the Sequence X. There are similarities to the Sequence IVB in the sense that the introduction at the proposed API SP limits would rule out 50% of the lubricants represented in the industry data gathering mentioned above. Discussions are ongoing about how to define limits appropriate for ACEA lubricants, which are subject to different chemical constrains than API lubricants. All parties agree with the need for chain wear protection. However, given the fact that gasoline direct injection engines have been the predominate gasoline technology in Europe for almost a decade, questions arise on how much additional protection is needed. One party not being prepared to give any compromise on the limit makes finding a mutually agreeable limit look unlikely.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GM was the first OEM in the world to introduce LSPI oils in 2015 with GM dexos2—three–four years before MB and PSA introduced LSPI oils. API introduced LSPI oils with API SN PLUS in 2018–2019—three–four years before ACEA introduced ACE A7/B7 and ACEA C6 LPSI oils in 2021–2022. That's all I meant by playing catch-up: Euro OEMs and ACEA were three–four years behind US OEMs and API in LSPI.

Now, if you read the excerpt above, things get more interesting:

ACEA decided to adopt API valvetrain and timing-chain wear tests in their ACEA-2021 specification, but it turned out that 50% of the existing ACEA oils failed the API valvetrain test, and another 50% of the existing ACEA oils failed the API timing-chain wear test! Note that most of these oils that failed the API wear tests would carry the "strict" Euro-OEM approvals as well. This should prove to anyone that you cannot make blanket statements such as "Euro oils are always better," "API oils have only the bare-minimum protection and performance," "thicker oils are always better," "more ZDDP is always better," etc. You are comparing apples and oranges when you compare API oils to ACEA/Euro-OEM oils, especially when you look at the silly Lubrizol spec-comparison spider charts, which probably don't mean anything. This comes as a surprise even to me because I didn't expect the ACEA oils to flunk the API valvetrain and timing-chain wear tests so badly, as wear protection is something crucial. What it shows is that there is no such thing as "best oil," and most modern specs these days protect the engines well, and different specs have advantages and disadvantages over each other, which will make an absolute comparison between different specs very difficult if not impossible.

The key piece is "...Discussions are ongoing about how to define limits appropriate for ACEA lubricants, which are subject to different chemical constrains than API lubricants. All parties agree with the need for chain wear protection...."

Perhaps the constraints revolve around implementation of GPF a couple of years ago?

 

[TacoFergie]

I would imagine Mobil 1 FS 0w40 would be one?? Or Castrol edge 0w40??

In my 01 Outback beater I use 5w30 Supertech. But thats non turbo and it has a hell of a lot of piston slap, so I'm really just putting a good and cheap oil in it till it dies. I don't think there is an oil that will extend it's life. I've tried rotella and other thicker oils. I don't think any of them performed any better, at least by my ear or feel.

But if I had an EJ powered WRX or STI I would absolutely run a good 0w40. Many choices out there, but 0w40 ESP is a solid choice that is available on the shelves. I don't think you can go wrong with either Mobil or Castrol. There are arguably better 0w40 oils, but many times they are double the cost and have to be ordered online. Ya, Motul is great. But at close to $100 per OCI for street car is wild for Subaru. I just prefer to go pick up oil whenever I want.

 

[Gokhan]

The key piece is "...Discussions are ongoing about how to define limits appropriate for ACEA lubricants, which are subject to different chemical constrains than API lubricants. All parties agree with the need for chain wear protection...."

Perhaps the constraints revolve around implementation of GPF a couple of years ago?

ACEA-2021 was released last year. Here is how the final ACEA-2021 specs compare to the API SP/RC (ILSAC GF-6) specs:

Valvetrain wear (Sequence IVB, ASTM D8350, Toyota 2NR-FE):

• API SP/RC: ≤ 2.7 mm³
• Legacy ACEA A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4, and C5: ≤ 3.3 mm³ (22% more wear than in API SP/RC)
• New ACEA A7/B7 and C6: ≤ 2.7 mm³ (same wear as in API SP/RC)

TGDI timing-chain wear (Sequence X, ASTM D8279, Ford EcoBoost 2.0 L):

• API SP/RC: ≤ 0.085 merits
• Legacy ACEA A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4 and C5: not tested, not certified for TGDI timing-chain wear
• New ACEA A7/B7 and C6: ≤ 0.085 merits (same wear as in API SP/RC)

TGDI LSPI (Sequence IX, ASTM D8291, Ford EcoBoost 2.0 L):

• API SP/RC: ≤ 5 events average and ≤ 8 events per iteration
• Legacy ACEA A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4 and C5: no test, not certified for LSPI
• New ACEA A7/B7 and C6: ≤ 5 events average and ≤ 8 events per iteration (same limits as in API SP/RC)

Foaming tendency (ASTM D892):

• Same limits in API SP/RC and all ACEA

High-temperature foaming tendency (ASTM D6082):

• Same limits in API SP/RC and all ACEA

Low-temperature sludge (Sequence VH, ASTM D8256, Ford Modular V8 4.6 L):

• Same limits in API SP/RC and all ACEA

So, the legacy ACEA categories (A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4, and C5) provide less valvetrain-wear protection than API SP/RC does and do not provide LSPI protection and timing-chain wear protection. The new ACEA categories (A7/B7 and ACEA C6) provide the same protection as API SP/RC does in all common tests listed above.

OEMs can add their own tests and chemical/physical specs such as Noack, like GM dexos1 and various Euro-OEM tests, making the protection better or more vehicle/OEM-specific. Nevertheless, the current ACEA and API/ILSAC specs show that the API/ILSAC and ACEA specs now have more or less converged, and the legacy ACEA A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4, and C5 specs have already fallen behind API SP/RC (ILSAC GF-6) in some protection requirements.

The reason why the legacy ACEA categories (A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4, and C5) provide less valvetrain-wear protection than API SP/RC does and provide no timing-chain wear protection is because half (50%) of the existing legacy ACEA oils failed to pass the valvetrain wear test at the API-SP/RC limits and another, different half (50%) failed to pass the timing-chain wear test at the API-SP/RC limits, and ACEA compromised to agree with the Euro OEMs to lower the bar for valvetrain wear and omit timing-chain wear protection altogether, even though the latter test is crucial in TGDI engines. Note that virtually all legacy ACEA oils include some Euro-OEM approval, and these Euro-OEM approvals did not help these legacy oils to pass the valvetrain and timing-chain wear tests. However, if a legacy ACEA oil also carries an API-SP approval, it will ensure that it will provide the highest valvetrain wear, timing-chain wear, and LSPI protection.

 

[TacoFergie]

ACEA-2021 was released last year. Here is how the final ACEA-2021 specs compare to the API SP/RC (ILSAC GF-6) specs:

Valvetrain wear (Sequence IVB, ASTM D8350, Toyota 2NR-FE):

• API SP/RC: ≤ 2.7 mm³
• Legacy ACEA A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4, and C5: ≤ 3.3 mm³ (22% more wear than in API SP/RC)
• New ACEA A7/B7 and C6: ≤ 2.7 mm³ (same wear as in API SP/RC)

TGDI timing-chain wear (ASTM D8279, Ford 2.0-L Ecoboost engine):

• API SP/RC: ≤ 0.085 merits
• Legacy ACEA A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4 and C5: not tested, not certified for TGDI timing-chain wear
• New ACEA A7/B7 and C6: ≤ 0.085 merits (same wear as in API SP/RC)

TGDI LSPI (ASTM D8291, Ford 2.0-L Ecoboost engine):

• API SP/RC: ≤ 5 events average and ≤ 8 events per iteration
• Legacy ACEA A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4 and C5: no test, not certified for LSPI
• New ACEA A7/B7 and C6: ≤ 5 events average and ≤ 8 events per iteration (same limits as in API SP/RC)

Foaming tendency (ASTM D892):

• Same limits in API SP/RC and all ACEA

High-temperature foaming tendency (ASTM D6082):

• Same limits in API SP/RC and all ACEA

Low-temperature sludge (Sequence VH, ASTM D8256):

• Same limits in API SP/RC and all ACEA

So, the legacy ACEA categories (A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4, and C5) provide less valvetrain-wear protection than API SP/RC does and do not provide LSPI protection and timing-chain wear protection. The new ACEA categories (A7/B7 and ACEA C6) provide the same protection as API SP/RC does in all common tests listed above.

OEMs can add their own tests and chemical/physical specs such as Noack, like GM dexos1 and various Euro-OEM tests, making the protection better or more vehicle/OEM-specific. Nevertheless, the current ACEA and API/ILSAC specs show that the API/ILSAC and ACEA specs now have more or less converged, and the legacy ACEA A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4, and C5 specs have already fallen behind API SP/RC (ILSAC GF-6) in some protection requirements.

So in a nut shell, what would be the oil of choice between Mobil 0w30 AFE and ESP for a vehicle that require API SN/SN PLUS and ISLAC GF-5? This is my dilema with my Ascent. It looks like ESP holds up better but AFE has specs that meet my requirements.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

ACEA-2021 was released last year. Here is how the final ACEA-2021 specs compare to the API SP/RC (ILSAC GF-6) specs:

Valvetrain wear (Sequence IVB, ASTM D8350, Toyota 2NR-FE):

• API SP/RC: ≤ 2.7 mm³
• Legacy ACEA A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4, and C5: ≤ 3.3 mm³ (22% more wear than in API SP/RC)
• New ACEA A7/B7 and C6: ≤ 2.7 mm³ (same wear as in API SP/RC)

TGDI timing-chain wear (ASTM D8279, Ford 2.0-L EcoBoost engine):

• API SP/RC: ≤ 0.085 merits
• Legacy ACEA A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4 and C5: not tested, not certified for TGDI timing-chain wear
• New ACEA A7/B7 and C6: ≤ 0.085 merits (same wear as in API SP/RC)

TGDI LSPI (ASTM D8291, Ford 2.0-L EcoBoost engine):

• API SP/RC: ≤ 5 events average and ≤ 8 events per iteration
• Legacy ACEA A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4 and C5: no test, not certified for LSPI
• New ACEA A7/B7 and C6: ≤ 5 events average and ≤ 8 events per iteration (same limits as in API SP/RC)

Foaming tendency (ASTM D892):

• Same limits in API SP/RC and all ACEA

High-temperature foaming tendency (ASTM D6082):

• Same limits in API SP/RC and all ACEA

Low-temperature sludge (Sequence VH, ASTM D8256):

• Same limits in API SP/RC and all ACEA

So, the legacy ACEA categories (A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4, and C5) provide less valvetrain-wear protection than API SP/RC does and do not provide LSPI protection and timing-chain wear protection. The new ACEA categories (A7/B7 and ACEA C6) provide the same protection as API SP/RC does in all common tests listed above.

OEMs can add their own tests and chemical/physical specs such as Noack, like GM dexos1 and various Euro-OEM tests, making the protection better or more vehicle/OEM-specific. Nevertheless, the current ACEA and API/ILSAC specs show that the API/ILSAC and ACEA specs now have more or less converged, and the legacy ACEA A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4, and C5 specs have already fallen behind API SP/RC (ILSAC GF-6) in some protection requirements.

The reason why the legacy ACEA categories (A3/B4, A5/B5, C2, C3, C4, and C5) provide less valvetrain-wear protection than API SP/RC does and provide no timing-chain wear protection is because half (50%) of the existing legacy ACEA oils failed to pass the valvetrain wear test at the API-SP/RC limits and another, different half (50%) failed to pass the timing-chain wear test at the API-SP/RC limits, and ACEA compromised to agree with the Euro OEMs to lower the bar for valvetrain wear and omit timing-chain wear protection altogether, even though the latter test is crucial in TGDI engines. Note that virtually all legacy ACEA oils include some Euro-OEM approval, and these Euro-OEM approvals did not help these legacy oils to pass the valvetrain and timing-chain wear tests. However, if a legacy ACEA oil also carries an API-SP approval, it will ensure that it will provide the highest valvetrain wear, timing-chain wear, and LSPI protection.

Which is probably why automakers opted to come up with their own specific timing chain and/or LSPI tests (ex 229.52).

The other thing is whether A3/B4, C3, C4, need to worry about LSPI or excessive timing chain wear.

 

[buster]

I haven't read through all the posts, but it appears to me that this is sort of an apples/oranges comparison here between ESP/EP.

 

[Fahrvergnügen]

So in a nut shell, what would be the oil of choice between Mobil 0w30 AFE and ESP for a vehicle that require API SN/SN PLUS and ISLAC GF-5? This is my dilema with my Ascent. It looks like ESP holds up better but AFE has specs that meet my requirements.

No vehicles ‘require’ API SN/SN PLUS. That is only in the USA it is recommended, but not required.

 

[Fahrvergnügen]

I haven't read through all the posts, but it appears to me that this is sort of an apples/oranges comparison here between ESP/EP.

ESP AND AFE

 

[Plawan]

Car has 213,000 miles on it. Definitely long term and I do siphon out a couple of quarts and replace every 4,000 miles. Central Kansas weather . Change CVT fluid every 10-15000 miles

So your from one of the flattest, most treeless, manure smelling places in North America?
I was born and raised in Dodge city so I can say all that lol….
You made it to 213k miles. I think, unless something has changed with the condition of your engine, you can just keep doing what you’ve been doing.

 

[TacoFergie]

No vehicles ‘require’ API SN/SN PLUS. That is only in the USA it is recommended, but not required.

Oddly enough, my does say "requires". I don't know if that's legally binding if the engine every gave up the ghost, but I haven't seen many say that before.

 

[edyvw]

No, I am not stuck on any kind of oil or approval. Where did you see me claiming that some approval is better than another?

This discussion was not even about API/ILSAC, but some—including you now—tried to turn it into one.

• It was about the fact that all new LSPI-certified oils will have reduced calcium and added magnesium soon, and most will carry an API-SP approval as well—indicating global LSPI certification. Some here were disputing this fact, and I was explaining that they were simply wrong and why. The reason is simply because it is unproductive for the additive companies to try to make all-calcium LSPI-certified oils given strict ZDDP limits by any Euro or non-Euro OEM now, as calcium starts linearly increasing the number of LSPI events after 1,000 ppm, and you can't even have half the ZDDP content you need to quench these events to acceptable limits.

You need to understand how oils are made and approved. The additive companies make and preapprove the oils—not the automotive OEMs, not the oil blenders. They are preapproved for blending, labeling, and sale. Then you need to understand that global oil approvals go hand by hand. You cannot separate ACEA/Euro-OEM approvals from ILSAC approvals because both ACEA/Euro-OEM and ILSAC additive packages are made by the same additive companies, and global oil approvals evolve simultaneously. For example ACEA and ILSAC have identical ASTM LSPI tests and test limits. Many of the other ACEA tests are also the same American ASTM tests in ILSAC.

Coming back to ACEA/Euro vs. ILSAC, the main difference is possible higher antioxidant (AO) content in ACEA/Euro-OEM oils. Most ILSAC oils also satisfy or explicitly have some ACEA/Euro-OEM approvals. Extended-performance ILSAC oils with higher antioxidant (AO) content sold here should be as good as or better than the best Euro-OEM oils out there, and some of them carry all the Euro-OEM approvals as well. For example, Castrol Edge 0W-20 SP carries an ACEA-C5 approval, and Castrol Edge EP 0W-20 SP with higher antioxidant (AO) content carries an ACEA-C6 approval and virtually all the strict Euro-OEM approvals.

No you didn’t explain anything. You were engaged in: if, but, should etc.
Mobil1 ESP 0W30 C3 has LSPI test, through MB229.52. That is it. What hurts your brain is that oil has 1700ppm Ca level.

 

[edyvw]

So I want to throw a wrench into this thread. I am about to do another OCI on my 2021 Subaru Ascent, which I'll likely be using 0w30 ESP in unless someone says it'll be detrimental. It has a 2.4 DIT that has been somewhat known for fuel in the oil, but I have not had that issue. While not considered a small displacement engine, it is for a 4600lb curb weight vehicle so it's under load most of the time I suspect. I have been noticing high rates of shear and decided to try 0w30. As you can see I have tried both 0w30 AFE and 0w30 ESP. My vehicle requires API SN/SN PLUS, which isn't API SP but o'well. Anyways here's my UOA for you guys to chew over.

View attachment 126163

Use ESP. There is some shearing, but ESP is closer to the grade.
Though with that shearing, I would bump it to Motul X-Clean 5W40.

 

[Gokhan]

No you didn’t explain anything. You were engaged in: if, but, should etc.
Mobil1 ESP 0W30 C3 has LSPI test, through MB229.52. That is it. What hurts your brain is that oil has 1700ppm Ca level.

We covered that and ended up going in a circle. It is moot issue—all these oils will have API SP with reduced calcium and added magnesium soon if not already.

 

[edyvw]

We covered that and ended up going in a circle. It is moot issue—all these oils will have API SP with reduced calcium and added magnesium soon if not already.

It is not moot issue.
2020 MB229.52 has LSPI test.
That is it.

 

[Gokhan]

So in a nut shell, what would be the oil of choice between Mobil 0w30 AFE and ESP for a vehicle that require API SN/SN PLUS and ISLAC GF-5? This is my dilema with my Ascent. It looks like ESP holds up better but AFE has specs that meet my requirements.

If your owner's manual recommends SAE 0W-20, you will be fine it. Use a good API-SP-rated SAE 0W-20 such as Castrol Edge Extended-Performance 0W-20 SP. It also has Euro-OEM approvals if it makes you feel more confident about it. Other API-SP-rated extended-performance 0W-20 oils should be good, too.

If you read my post before yours, you will see that more than half of the Euro oils that didn't have an API-SP rating flunked the API-SP valvetrain and timing-chain wear tests, and 90% of these oils are thick ACEA-A3/B4 full-SAPS and thick ACEA-C3 mid-SAPS oils. A thicker oil and/or more SAPS do not automatically mean more protection against wear. A well-balanced additive package is crucial.

 

[Gokhan]

It is not moot issue.
2020 MB229.52 has LSPI test.
That is it.

• We do not even know if the oil passed that test because the MB LSPI spec did not come until ~ 2019.
• It is not the only LSPI test.
• We do not know how strict is that test.
• Passing a test does not mean the oil passed it in flying colors—it could have barely passed it.
• It is a moot issue because no additive company is going to insist on all-calcium oils, and these oils will all have reduced calcium and added magnesium with API-SP rating soon if not already.
• It is a moot issue because these all-calcium oils are now a thing of the past.