Does ILSAC + OEM OCI have consumers best interest protected?

[Fredxt]

Hello BITOGers!

In this thread I want to seek your opinion on the following questions?

1. How ILSAC approval specs are formed? What is the input to the process? Where is the consumer input to this process?
2. Is ILSAC approval + OEM OCI good enough for the end consumer? Do you know/have cars that failed while using ILSAC approved oil and OEM OCI?

Here is a video to watch, basically the inputs are from OEMs and it seems that before GF-6 there has been no directly related to field-performance test:


Here is the API 1509, Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System, 22nd Edition, October 2023 and other related documents:

API 1509 Documents

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Our more than 600 corporate members, from the largest major oil company to the smallest of independents, come from all segments of the industry.

www.api.org

Here is a sponsored video showing the testing process for an approved Mobil1 oil


From what I see, the test are not complete end to end tests that guarantee engine longevity outside of 50-60K miles guarantee interval, specially if you follow OEM OCI with bare minimum certified oils.

 

[bullwinkle]

I’m not convinced ILSAC testing is anywhere near as comprehensive as ACEA, Dexos, or even API testing. There’s been a few failures of OEM OCIs, Hyundai/Kia being the most infamous, but MANY GDI engine OEM OCIs seem to be far too long.

 

[fantastic]

The auto manufacturers were scrambling to fix the warranty related timing chain failures when they pushed for SN+ & since the whole thing is made up of OEM's I'd say they have a huge input of how the oil tech is formulated. It's obvious they have no crystal ball on how many major failures they'll see until they have to pay out under warranty. That's probably how the consumer gets voice is through warranty repairs that are consistent which prompts the OEM to change oil standards or requirements. We've seen bulletins go out reducing oil change intervals. I do believe that engines are mostly designed to go past the warranty mileage on the specified oil change interval but that requires topping off the fluid when it's needed. Will reducing the oil change interval have the engine last longer? It all depends on many variables like short/long trip, landscape, quality of oil, etc.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

"From what I see, the test are not complete end to end tests that guarantee engine longevity outside of 50-60K miles guarantee interval, specially if you follow OEM OCI with bare minimum certified oils."

Where are you coming from with this concern? Is this a rationalized, actualized or some irrational fear? Have you had failures in recent past? I see in your signature you are using high performance oils.

I don't know where you are coming up with the 50-60K mile longevity estimate - AFAIK there has been no data release from manufacturers as those cards are held close to the vest.
for the obvious reasons. There has been mention of some possible reduction in industry predicted minimum and modal service life bandied about - here and on similar forums - with the advent of lower HTHS lubricants a couple decades ago. I cant put much weight in that (pun?) as I cannot even find or footnote it.

Lastly, for now, what is a "bare minimum certified oil" and how do you determine and define that? Are you forgetting or discounting the myriad barrage of ASTM testing in the certification process? and also the manufacturer's extensive durability testing which will certainly use the specified ILSAC lubricant?

You really did throw a stink bomb in to study hall with this post

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Average age of vehicles in U.S. 2022 | Statista

Passenger cars and light trucks in the United States had an average age of 12.2 years in 2022.

www.statista.com

 

[OVERKILL]

Hello BITOGers!

In this thread I want to seek your opinion on the following questions?

1. How ILSAC approval specs are formed? What is the input to the process? Where is the consumer input to this process?
2. Is ILSAC approval + OEM OCI good enough for the end consumer? Do you know/have cars that failed while using ILSAC approved oil and OEM OCI?

Here is a video to watch, basically the inputs are from OEMs and it seems that before GF-6 there has been no directly related to field-performance test:


Here is the API 1509, Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System, 22nd Edition, October 2023 and other related documents:

API 1509 Documents

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Our more than 600 corporate members, from the largest major oil company to the smallest of independents, come from all segments of the industry.

www.api.org

Here is a sponsored video showing the testing process for an approved Mobil1 oil


From what I see, the test are not complete end to end tests that guarantee engine longevity outside of 50-60K miles guarantee interval, specially if you follow OEM OCI with bare minimum certified oils.

Where are you going with this? IE, what are you trying to compare it to? If that's an oil that passed a gear oil bench test for example, do you think this is somehow more indicative of real world performance? (per the other thread)

An API/ILSAC oil necessarily has to pass a rather extensive range of engine tests. There are more tests with OE approvals, which vary considerably depending on the OEM. Many of these are actual engine tests, not bench tests.

The API also imposes limits on formulations. Some of these are based on emissions systems protection, such as the phosphorous limit. This is also restricted to grade, phosphorous isn't limited on xW-40 and above.

The ACEA system is similar, but different. Phosphorous is also effectively restricted for the C-series oils, for a similar reason (GPF/DPF protection) but it is not as strict, as the limit is imposed on SAPS rather than a specific element.

In either instance, producing an approved product at minimum means that there's a known and established level of performance, a floor so to speak, which can't be said for a product that doesn't follow this path. If you choose one of those products, you are dependent on the trustworthiness of the blender to have performed adequate testing.

These exchanges are starting to smell a bit like sealioning at this juncture, so that's the limit of what I'm willing to contribute until I've determined otherwise.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

... ...

These exchanges are starting to smell a bit like sealioning at this juncture, so that's the limit of what I'm willing to contribute until I've determined otherwise.

Well excuse me! O exalted Grand Poohbah of the Frozen North

Looks like a video lifted from the Lubrizol page so maybe he could spend some MORE time there.

Maybe he just wants to passively bash guys like me running "Junk Food" oil

Hey, maybe one up him with a HPL vs Redline discussion and show him the error of his ways (look at his signature lubes)
____________________________________________

aside:
I see I just hit 20K posts; do I get a prize of some sort - or just a chorus of moans?

 

[4WD]

Well excuse me! O exalted Grand Poohbah of the Frozen North

Looks like a video lifted from the Lubrizol page so maybe he could spend some MORE time there.

Maybe he just wants to passively bash guys like me running "Junk Food" oil

Hey, maybe one up him with a HPL vs Redline discussion and show him the error of his ways (look at his signature lubes)
____________________________________________

aside:
I see I just hit 20K posts; do I get a prize of some sort - or just a chorus of moans?

We are sorry to inform you of your free 20k limit …

 

[ARCOgraphite]

We are sorry to inform you of your free 20k limit …

I want to be a site donor, but I didn't want to reveal my true celebrity Identity in the process

 

[Fredxt]

"From what I see, the test are not complete end to end tests that guarantee engine longevity outside of 50-60K miles guarantee interval, specially if you follow OEM OCI with bare minimum certified oils."

Where are you coming from with this concern? Is this a rationalized, actualized or some irrational fear? Have you had failures in recent past? I see in your signature you are using high performance oils.

I don't know where you are coming up with the 50-60K mile longevity estimate - AFAIK there has been no data release from manufacturers as those cards are held close to the vest.
for the obvious reasons. There has been mention of some possible reduction in industry predicted minimum and modal service life bandied about - here and on similar forums - with the advent of lower HTHS lubricants a couple decades ago. I cant put much weight in that (pun?) as I cannot even find or footnote it.

Lastly, for now, what is a "bare minimum certified oil" and how do you determine and define that? Are you forgetting or discounting the myriad barrage of ASTM testing in the certification process? and also the manufacturer's extensive durability testing which will certainly use the specified ILSAC lubricant?

You really did throw a stink bomb in to study hall with this post

It's a basic scientific thinking process to seek evidence on to disproof some statement. We are considering an statement that says ILSAC+OEM have the consumers best interest in mind, then we need evidence on the contrary or evidence to disproof that statement. We don't need a personal drama to start thinking about it.

 

[Fredxt]

The auto manufacturers were scrambling to fix the warranty related timing chain failures when they pushed for SN+ & since the whole thing is made up of OEM's I'd say they have a huge input of how the oil tech is formulated. It's obvious they have no crystal ball on how many major failures they'll see until they have to pay out under warranty. That's probably how the consumer gets voice is through warranty repairs that are consistent which prompts the OEM to change oil standards or requirements. We've seen bulletins go out reducing oil change intervals. I do believe that engines are mostly designed to go past the warranty mileage on the specified oil change interval but that requires topping off the fluid when it's needed. Will reducing the oil change interval have the engine last longer? It all depends on many variables like short/long trip, landscape, quality of oil, etc.

I agree with you and the first video confirms it as well, I also add that the consumer has zero say in this process currently.
OEM don't have a crystal ball, but they have their own engines. Put it into a 10000Hr test with the oil that they agreed on and see if it works. Why there is no adequate long-term engine test done and published publicly?
OEM can also make an ECU that tracks speed, trip duration, oil/coolant temperature, load on the engine, rpm, etc with the current sensors, so they should be providing a better "oil change" lamp than a simple mileage counter. No consumer advocacy group has ever pushed them to do anything more than that so far.

 

[Fredxt]

Where are you going with this? IE, what are you trying to compare it to? If that's an oil that passed a gear oil bench test for example, do you think this is somehow more indicative of real world performance? (per the other thread)

It really doesn't matter what my reason is to start the thread. But if you ask, (1) disproof the claim that ILSAC donut on an oil jug means my best interest was protected in the process of creating and certifying that certificate/approval/etc (2) to see if consumers see a point to push for a higher bar on these certificate/approval/etc processes.

An API/ILSAC oil necessarily has to pass a rather extensive range of engine tests. There are more tests with OE approvals, which vary considerably depending on the OEM. Many of these are actual engine tests, not bench tests.

Almost all of which are performed on a brand new or reman engine for 90hrs, 150 hrs, 216 hrs. There is not a single realistic n-1000Hr test with different driving conditions, loads, temperatures, fuel quality in a sequence.
The ILSAC guy in the video just said they had no real usecase test before LSPI issue.

The API also imposes limits on formulations. Some of these are based on emissions systems protection, such as the phosphorous limit. This is also restricted to grade, phosphorous isn't limited on xW-40 and above.
View attachment 190141

The ACEA system is similar, but different. Phosphorous is also restricted for the C-series oils, for a similar reason (GPF/DPF protection) but it is not as strict, as the limit is imposed on SAPS rather than a specific element.

In either instance, producing an approved product at minimum means that there's a known and established level of performance, a floor so to speak, which can't be said for a product that doesn't follow this path. If you choose one of those products, you are dependent on the trustworthiness of the blender to have performed adequate testing.

Putting their EPA related restrictions aside (which eventually makes them limit ph, etc), yes, there is a stablished level of performance, and there the bar is set very low. Consumers' best interest is to know:
if I use oil-x on engine-y with z-hr/mi intervals my engine will be in spec after n-thousand hours.

Why OEM-x who had a say in ILSAC certificate-y does not HAVE TO test it's engine using the oil made to their input and publish a long term comprehensive 2/5/10-000-Hr test outcome with various driving conditions and temperature? It's the consumers duty to ask and to push for that.

These exchanges are starting to smell a bit like sealioning at this juncture, so that's the limit of what I'm willing to contribute until I've determined otherwise.

I appreciate your contributions.

 

[kschachn]

There’s been a fairly consistent itteration of these anti-API or anti-ILSAC posters on Bitog over the years, claiming it’s irrelevant or sometimes downright dangerous to the industry. It’s nothing new.

 

[OVERKILL]

It really doesn't matter what my reason is to start the thread. But if you ask, (1) disproof the claim that ILSAC donut on an oil jug means my best interest was protected in the process of creating and certifying that certificate/approval/etc (2) to see if consumers see a point to push for a higher bar on these certificate/approval/etc processes.

I hope you appreciate that these statements are completely at odds with your statement in the other thread:

Seems like the best oil among the group. How can we dispute that argument based on this data?

With respect to Royal Purple HPS, based on nothing more than a handful of bench tests, one which was designed to screen VII polymers, the other being an EP test for gear oils.

The optics of this make it appear as though this thread (hence my query) is nothing more than concern trolling. You can't simultaneously maintain that the API and ILSAC approval process is inadequate; that the bar is simply not set high enough, while concluding that an oil with no approvals whatsoever, that, in a couple of bench tests with little to no applicability to real world performance, is the bloody bees knees Fred.

Almost all of which are performed on a brand new or reman engine for 90hrs, 150 hrs, 216 hrs. There is not a single realistic n-1000Hr test with different driving conditions, loads, temperatures, fuel quality in a sequence.

Do you understand how extrapolation and modelling work?

The ILSAC guy in the video just said they had no real usecase test before LSPI issue.

Because LSPI wasn't an issue. Why would there be an LSPI test if LSPI isn't an issue? Once LSPI became something that needed to be addressed, it was.

Putting their EPA related restrictions aside (which eventually makes them limit ph, etc),

Why are you stating with authority that the EPA is behind the limit when this whole thread is predicated on your position being one that is "investigative"?

yes, there is a stablished level of performance, and there the bar is set very low. Consumers' best interest is to know:
if I use oil-x on engine-y with z-hr/mi intervals my engine will be in spec after n-thousand hours.

The bar is set low compared to what Fred? A bench test for gear oils? You need a foundation upon which you can base this conclusion. So far, all I see is a series of inherent contradictions mixed with wishy-washy speculation with the odd interjection of "facts" which are dubious in nature.

Why OEM-x who had a say in ILSAC certificate-y does not HAVE TO test it's engine using the oil made to their input and publish a long term comprehensive 2/5/10-000-Hr test outcome with various driving conditions and temperature? It's the consumers duty to ask and to push for that.

To what benefit? If they conclude that the existing scope and test rig are applicable to their equipment and are wholly sufficient, why would they mandate testing above and beyond that?

OEM can also make an ECU that tracks speed, trip duration, oil/coolant temperature, load on the engine, rpm, etc with the current sensors, so they should be providing a better "oil change" lamp than a simple mileage counter. No consumer advocacy group has ever pushed them to do anything more than that so far.

There are plenty of OEM's whose OLM's are more than mileage counters. This is a decision the consumer is free to roll into their vehicle buying and decision making process. GM and FCA both use complex algorithms based on a plethora of factors to determine OCI length for example.

 

[Fredxt]

I hope you appreciate that these statements are completely at odds with your statement in the other thread:

With respect to Royal Purple HPS, based on nothing more than a handful of bench tests, one which was designed to screen VII polymers, the other being an EP test for gear oils.

The optics of this make it appear as though this thread (hence my query) is nothing more than concern trolling. You can't simultaneously maintain that the API and ILSAC approval process is inadequate; that the bar is simply not set high enough, while concluding that an oil with no approvals whatsoever, that, in a couple of bench tests with little to no applicability to real world performance, is the bloody bees knees Fred.

That thread's discussion belongs to that thread, not here.

Do you understand how extrapolation and modelling work?

Because LSPI wasn't an issue. Why would there be an LSPI test if LSPI isn't an issue? Once LSPI became something that needed to be addressed, it was.

You did not listen to the guy. He said (3:03) "in the 32 years I've been in this business it's the first time the industry has an engine test that actually measure the field issue, all the other test really are designed to try and simulate mimic..."
Most probably the industry only cares about the warranty period issues.

Why are you stating with authority that the EPA is behind the limit when this whole thread is predicated on your position being one that is "investigative"?

The bar is set low compared to what Fred? A bench test for gear oils? You need a foundation upon which you can base this conclusion. So far, all I see is a series of inherent contradictions mixed with wishy-washy speculation with the odd interjection of "facts" which are dubious in nature.

Usually, when you set a bar a threshold, there is a knee curve. A curve that shows the merit of the outcome vs the complexity/cost/etc of the product. I am not the one who provides what they need to compare it to. There should be clear statement of what the merit is, and how to measure. Consumer want longevity as a merit, who did care about that in their "bar setting" process?

To what benefit? If they conclude that the existing scope and test rig are applicable to their equipment and are wholly sufficient, why would they mandate testing above and beyond that?

They won't mandate, it's the consumer that will ask for more testing more long term results, data collection and even legislation.
OEM might just want the car to last the warranty period. It's not what the consumer wants though.

There are plenty of OEM's whose OLM's are more than mileage counters. This is a decision the consumer is free to roll into their vehicle buying and decision making process. GM and FCA both use complex algorithms based on a plethora of factors to determine OCI length for example.

It's good to hear it exists, it's just sad that it didn't help with their reliability

 

[Fredxt]

More from the ILSAC document:

4.2.1 The ultimate assessment of an engine oil’s performance includes a variety of vehicle fleet tests that simulate the full range of customer driving conditions. The engine sequence and bench tests listed in this document have been specified instead of fleet testing to minimize testing time and costs. These specific tests were selected to mimic challenging field conditions and have been judged to be predictive of and applicable to a variety of vehicle tests under similar field conditions. The tests were vetted and agreed to in open forums operated under the auspices of organizations such as API, ASTM, and SAE. The relationships between engine sequence tests and vehicle fleet tests are judged valid based only on the range of base oils and additive technologies investigated— generally those that have proven to have satisfactory performance in service and that are in widespread use at this time.

Where are the fleet test numbers that were used to judge adequacy of these tests? Nowhere.
The entire document seems to be based on a "believe me bro" argument
When was the last time that these guys judgment turned out to be wrong? Nobody knows!

 

[ARCOgraphite]

More from the ILSAC document:



Where are the fleet test numbers that were used to judge adequacy of these tests? Nowhere.
The entire document seems to be based on a "believe me bro" argument
When was the last time that these guys judgment turned out to be wrong? Nobody knows!

Auto manufacturers perform durability testing of their products, and provide feedback to the lubricant industry - where required - for the product to meet service life and performance targets.

The drive towards higher power density and better efficiency of the past decade is certainly doing reliability no favour, adding stressors to materials and lubricants.

I see your (two) vehicle engines are nearing the end of their predicted service life and will require refurbishment soon.
If your sample(s) land on the good side of the bell curve - near 3s - maybe you're good to go for a few more years.

And yes, new cars are expensive; don't cry to me, I am in the same boat - the excess tears will sink us.

 

[OVERKILL]

That thread's discussion belongs to that thread, not here.

That's not how this works though. You made a statement, it's associated with you, and in this instance, there's a blatant contradiction.

You did not listen to the guy. He said (3:03) "in the 32 years I've been in this business it's the first time the industry has an engine test that actually measure the field issue, all the other test really are designed to try and simulate mimic..."
Most probably the industry only cares about the warranty period issues.

Sequence IVA for example, is designed to replicate/reproduce the conditions associated with short tripping, where the oil never gets up to temperature. How about taking a look through the sequences?

Usually, when you set a bar a threshold, there is a knee curve. A curve that shows the merit of the outcome vs the complexity/cost/etc of the product. I am not the one who provides what they need to compare it to. There should be clear statement of what the merit is, and how to measure. Consumer want longevity as a merit, who did care about that in their "bar setting" process?

But again, you concluded that Royal Purple HPS was "the best" based on nothing more than a couple non-applicable bench tests So, do you know what you are really asking for and whether it isn't already present?

They won't mandate, it's the consumer that will ask for more testing more long term results, data collection and even legislation.
OEM might just want the car to last the warranty period. It's not what the consumer wants though.

And you somehow feel this is a lubricant issue? How many engine failures do you know of personally, that were directly related to the oil quality that could be avoided by more rigorous standards, that sent a car to the wreckers?

It's good to hear it exists, it's just sad that it didn't help with their reliability

Can you give me an example here of where ILSAC/API wasn't rigorous enough and it impacted the reliability of an FCA/Stellantis vehicle?

 

[buster]

Auto manufacturers perform durability testing of their products, and provide feedback to the lubricant industry - where required - for the product to meet service life and performance targets.

I had no idea until recently that all engines have a B10 rating.

I'm confused on what the question is for this topic in discussion.

 

[Fredxt]

That's not how this works though. You made a statement, it's associated with you, and in this instance, there's a blatant contradiction.

Where is the website guide that tell us that's how it works here? I see mixing threads as a bigger issue.

Sequence IVA for example, is designed to replicate/reproduce the conditions associated with short tripping, where the oil never gets up to temperature. How about taking a look through the sequences?

Again you didn't pay attention, was that test for the field "issue" like what the guy said, or just one more test because of a new technology (e.g. start stop)?
What where the field issues that where not being tested directly before? We can ask that guy. But also a document that does not seek evidence to disproof itself leaves little room to be trusted. Or, there has never been any field ""issues"" before? There has been (I assume) and they have not be directly tested.

But again, you concluded that Royal Purple HPS was "the best" based on nothing more than a couple non-applicable bench tests So, do you know what you are really asking for and whether it isn't already present?

Again, let's continue it there, but I have no issue backtracking from what I perceived or expressed. This thread is on a separate issue. I will not repeat that.

And you somehow feel this is a lubricant issue? How many engine failures do you know of personally, that were directly related to the oil quality that could be avoided by more rigorous standards, that sent a car to the wreckers?

Can you give me an example here of where ILSAC/API wasn't rigorous enough and it impacted the reliability of an FCA/Stellantis vehicle?

I don't have examples, and was talking about their general reliability.