What do you mean by "Not outside of Europe"?? either the specification is evergreen or it isn't. Whether or not someone would challenge it or call the FTC or something like that may be unlikely but if I'm marketing an A3/B3 oil then ethically it should meet the current spec because "A3/B3-2010" isn't a real thing.
Does SAE grade even matter or is it HTHS alone?
- Thread starter fdcg27
- Start date
- Status
The ACEA is a purely European entity. It has no force, meaning, nor enforceability outside Europe. Same deal with EC norms in another realm I have use for; motorcycle protective gear. You can have a helmet that says it's compliant with the ECE 22-05 standard, but if it's not and you're in the USA, too bad for you.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Isn't the ACEA specification supposed to be evergreen? IE if you are claiming it you have to conform to the current version of the spec and if you don't then you fall afoul of advertising laws?
This is true with the API starburst and the Dexos1/Dexos2 labels.
It's impossible to identify 4 year old stock for the average consumer though.... so your new oil could be 2 spec changes old.
Isn't the ACEA specification supposed to be evergreen? IE if you are claiming it you have to conform to the current version of the spec and if you don't then you fall afoul of advertising laws?
This is true with the API starburst and the Dexos1/Dexos2 labels.
It's impossible to identify 4 year old stock for the average consumer though.... so your new oil could be 2 spec changes old.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
As to the KV150, here's a particular unicorn that wouldn't exist in a sensible world.
https://mobiloil.com/en/motor-oils/mobil-1/mobil-1-racing-oil
M1 Racing 0W50, is allegedly a 50 (it meets 50 KV100, and the HTHS minimums), but offers protection of a 0W/5W40 at high temperatures.
It's HTHS is 3.8 (note in Cp, which has to be converted to Cst)...making it 5.1Cst...it's KV150 should be 7.1, so it's 28% thinner than it should otherwise be.
I had a bit of a think about this, the Harman index, how HTHS is measured, and the low traction coefficient of PAO.
When you combine all, you get that majority PAO oils look like they have an inflated KV100 (and KV40 to lesser extend, due to excellent VI) for their HTHS, and get a poor result in the Harman index although they might have very little and/or very shear stable VII treatment.
HTHS does measure the resistance of the oil film, so if the resistance is 30% lower due to the traction coefficient, you'll get a lower result. 30% lower traction coefficient gets reported compared to mineral oils. Traction coefficient is of little influence in a kv measurement though.
I wouldn' be surprised if that mobil product is as pure as possible PAO.
As to the KV150, here's a particular unicorn that wouldn't exist in a sensible world.
https://mobiloil.com/en/motor-oils/mobil-1/mobil-1-racing-oil
M1 Racing 0W50, is allegedly a 50 (it meets 50 KV100, and the HTHS minimums), but offers protection of a 0W/5W40 at high temperatures.
It's HTHS is 3.8 (note in Cp, which has to be converted to Cst)...making it 5.1Cst...it's KV150 should be 7.1, so it's 28% thinner than it should otherwise be.
I had a bit of a think about this, the Harman index, how HTHS is measured, and the low traction coefficient of PAO.
When you combine all, you get that majority PAO oils look like they have an inflated KV100 (and KV40 to lesser extend, due to excellent VI) for their HTHS, and get a poor result in the Harman index although they might have very little and/or very shear stable VII treatment.
HTHS does measure the resistance of the oil film, so if the resistance is 30% lower due to the traction coefficient, you'll get a lower result. 30% lower traction coefficient gets reported compared to mineral oils. Traction coefficient is of little influence in a kv measurement though.
I wouldn' be surprised if that mobil product is as pure as possible PAO.
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
The ACEA is a purely European entity. It has no force, meaning, nor enforceability outside Europe. Same deal with EC norms in another realm I have use for; motorcycle protective gear. You can have a helmet that says it's compliant with the ECE 22-05 standard, but if it's not and you're in the USA, too bad for you.
Why should it matter who developed the standard? If you're in the USA and you claim to meet a non-USA standard but don't, that is still making a false claim. These ACEA oils sold in the USA usually also say "Euro" on the bottle, implying they can be used for current cars requiring the current Euro specs.
The ACEA is a purely European entity. It has no force, meaning, nor enforceability outside Europe. Same deal with EC norms in another realm I have use for; motorcycle protective gear. You can have a helmet that says it's compliant with the ECE 22-05 standard, but if it's not and you're in the USA, too bad for you.
Why should it matter who developed the standard? If you're in the USA and you claim to meet a non-USA standard but don't, that is still making a false claim. These ACEA oils sold in the USA usually also say "Euro" on the bottle, implying they can be used for current cars requiring the current Euro specs.
It is utterly illogical, as well as extremely unwanted, to enforce foreign countries' laws against our own citizens, and/or to try to enforce said foreign countries' laws against foreign companies. If you want to go complain to the _european_ advertising or regulatory bodies, knock yourself out. They're in a similar position: They have jurisdiction in their own country (or the EC, or whatever), not overseas.
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
It is utterly illogical, as well as extremely unwanted, to enforce foreign countries' laws against our own citizens, and/or to try to enforce said foreign countries' laws against foreign companies.
What on Earth do foreign Countries Laws have to do with truth in oil bottle advertising on American Soil ?
You say you meet it, meet it.
It's a specification and test regime, not a law.
It is utterly illogical, as well as extremely unwanted, to enforce foreign countries' laws against our own citizens, and/or to try to enforce said foreign countries' laws against foreign companies.
What on Earth do foreign Countries Laws have to do with truth in oil bottle advertising on American Soil ?
You say you meet it, meet it.
It's a specification and test regime, not a law.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I don't know for sure but would guess that the 'problem' 10W40's you're talking about originated out of the US.
You are almost certainly correct. These were generally marketed as conventional lubricants. Even today, finding an A3/B4 10w-40 here is just about impossible. Heck, any A3/B4 lubricant here will be marketed as synthetic and be, almost without exception, 0w-30, 5w30, 0w-40, or 5w-40.
As for ACEA specifications and the year of the specification, I guess we either trust an oil company, or we don't. Some are pretty slack with how they handle the ACEA specifications. Some use older versions, and are very transparent about it. It's still technically a no-no, but they make it very clear what they mean. At least with the majors and their products with the formal builder approvals, I would hope that the ACEA specs are current, given that the OEM approvals tend to be beyond that.
As for Shannow's last point, about specifications and meeting what one actually claims, I agree. It doesn't matter where the specification is from. Should every lubricant in North America claim LL-01 because that's a German company's specification and who here gives a darn about German specifications?
I don't know for sure but would guess that the 'problem' 10W40's you're talking about originated out of the US.
You are almost certainly correct. These were generally marketed as conventional lubricants. Even today, finding an A3/B4 10w-40 here is just about impossible. Heck, any A3/B4 lubricant here will be marketed as synthetic and be, almost without exception, 0w-30, 5w30, 0w-40, or 5w-40.
As for ACEA specifications and the year of the specification, I guess we either trust an oil company, or we don't. Some are pretty slack with how they handle the ACEA specifications. Some use older versions, and are very transparent about it. It's still technically a no-no, but they make it very clear what they mean. At least with the majors and their products with the formal builder approvals, I would hope that the ACEA specs are current, given that the OEM approvals tend to be beyond that.
As for Shannow's last point, about specifications and meeting what one actually claims, I agree. It doesn't matter where the specification is from. Should every lubricant in North America claim LL-01 because that's a German company's specification and who here gives a darn about German specifications?
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
VII polymers in engine oil will shear when subjected to mechanical stress and lose part of their functionality.
Is there a likelihood in high shear areas like differential hypoid gears and cams/lifters or any other applications , VII completely lost its viscosity contribution temporarily ?
What about permanently lost its viscosity contribution.
Btw, can base oil operating at high temp and high shear, temporarily lost its viscosity?
There are time elements to the rheological behaviors of a fluid. These have to do with the chemical characteristics as well as the physical characteristics of the fluid. Very interesting research area, especially for other polymer industries, like spinning of fibers that have fine particles or other polymers dispersed.
I think that for oils, the key thing to remember is this - VI is purely a viscosity/temperature correlation. Easily defined as a ratio for various temperatures, and offering no specific basis for shear-induced phenomena which can affect the viscous behaviors. This comes back to the comment early on in this thread that mentioned that junky 10w-40 oils (made with a ton of VII) were not protecting as their viscosity would suggest.
Polymeric additives behave a certain way. They are all tangled up as long, high molecular weight chains (think worms or snakes entangled). Recall how I said that VI is purely a temperature phenomena? So for a given stress, the viscosity at different temperatures may vary in some way. And that gets reported, and all is well. But it's not the whole picture... Over time, those polymers can not only shear and straighten out (equating essentially to lower viscosity/higher flow with the same pressure drop), but they also break, chemically degrade, and for certain time constants and scenarios, slowly return to their tangled form, sometimes fully, sometimes not. It's the sometimes not that is an interesting research area and which relates to what you ask.
So that's really the point of HTHS. VI isn't sufficiently indicative, going to a higher temperature doesn't properly indicate the "uncoiling" phenomena of VIIs and other additives, both from the perspective of shear-induced viscosity changes, along with the time and chemically-related relaxation parameters inherent in the fluid. Situations where the VII won't necessarily immediately fully re-coil, yet it also does not stay fully straight and unimpeding to the fluid characteristics. The basis of various hysteresis and time phased phenomena is directly related to why we must study other characteristics to define what a fluid actually looks like under more severe use.
The matching of VII to base fluid, the thermal and viscous response of that fluid and mix, etc. all come into play. Simple enough to blend and get some top level characteristics, but more difficult to fully optimize for sustained viscosity enhancement, etc.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
VII polymers in engine oil will shear when subjected to mechanical stress and lose part of their functionality.
Is there a likelihood in high shear areas like differential hypoid gears and cams/lifters or any other applications , VII completely lost its viscosity contribution temporarily ?
What about permanently lost its viscosity contribution.
Btw, can base oil operating at high temp and high shear, temporarily lost its viscosity?
There are time elements to the rheological behaviors of a fluid. These have to do with the chemical characteristics as well as the physical characteristics of the fluid. Very interesting research area, especially for other polymer industries, like spinning of fibers that have fine particles or other polymers dispersed.
I think that for oils, the key thing to remember is this - VI is purely a viscosity/temperature correlation. Easily defined as a ratio for various temperatures, and offering no specific basis for shear-induced phenomena which can affect the viscous behaviors. This comes back to the comment early on in this thread that mentioned that junky 10w-40 oils (made with a ton of VII) were not protecting as their viscosity would suggest.
Polymeric additives behave a certain way. They are all tangled up as long, high molecular weight chains (think worms or snakes entangled). Recall how I said that VI is purely a temperature phenomena? So for a given stress, the viscosity at different temperatures may vary in some way. And that gets reported, and all is well. But it's not the whole picture... Over time, those polymers can not only shear and straighten out (equating essentially to lower viscosity/higher flow with the same pressure drop), but they also break, chemically degrade, and for certain time constants and scenarios, slowly return to their tangled form, sometimes fully, sometimes not. It's the sometimes not that is an interesting research area and which relates to what you ask.
So that's really the point of HTHS. VI isn't sufficiently indicative, going to a higher temperature doesn't properly indicate the "uncoiling" phenomena of VIIs and other additives, both from the perspective of shear-induced viscosity changes, along with the time and chemically-related relaxation parameters inherent in the fluid. Situations where the VII won't necessarily immediately fully re-coil, yet it also does not stay fully straight and unimpeding to the fluid characteristics. The basis of various hysteresis and time phased phenomena is directly related to why we must study other characteristics to define what a fluid actually looks like under more severe use.
The matching of VII to base fluid, the thermal and viscous response of that fluid and mix, etc. all come into play. Simple enough to blend and get some top level characteristics, but more difficult to fully optimize for sustained viscosity enhancement, etc.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
What on Earth do foreign Countries Laws have to do with truth in oil bottle advertising on American Soil ?
You say you meet it, meet it.
It's a specification and test regime, not a law.
Try to follow along. In the hypothetical advanced, IT DOES MEET IT. The whining has been about whether a specified version of an ACEA spec has been replaced in Europe. That makes no difference in a place outside ACEA's realm. So, if you say you meet AX/BY-98, and you meet it, you've told the truth. The fact that -98 is not the most current revision is irrelevant, because you specified exactly what you meet, and you meet it. The legal aspect comes into play when it comes try trying to enforce ACEA's 'evergreen' provision, and to _require_ compliance with all of ACEA's terms and provisions outside Europe.
What on Earth do foreign Countries Laws have to do with truth in oil bottle advertising on American Soil ?
You say you meet it, meet it.
It's a specification and test regime, not a law.
Try to follow along. In the hypothetical advanced, IT DOES MEET IT. The whining has been about whether a specified version of an ACEA spec has been replaced in Europe. That makes no difference in a place outside ACEA's realm. So, if you say you meet AX/BY-98, and you meet it, you've told the truth. The fact that -98 is not the most current revision is irrelevant, because you specified exactly what you meet, and you meet it. The legal aspect comes into play when it comes try trying to enforce ACEA's 'evergreen' provision, and to _require_ compliance with all of ACEA's terms and provisions outside Europe.
I'm not disagreeing with what you said because A) this is a hypothetical situation and B) what you said is technically true.
But I do think there is ethically something wrong with taking this approach. The ACEA specifications are designed to be evergreen, and in a global market consumers rely on companies behaving ethically by following the standards of the organization that put it out. To put a disclaimer of some kind saying you meet "AX/BY-98" may be the truth BUT it could further confuse consumers who don't understand what they are looking at when the owners' manual or oil bottle show an ACEA credential. It also dilutes the value of the ACEA credential to the companies that play by the rules.
Because this happens in the market, people start getting more confused about what an ACEA credential means and then there is greater chance for misapplication of fluids and unsatisfied customers. In my mind if you can't meet the current iterations of the specification, the way it is written by the organizing body, then you shouldn't be referring in any way to ACEA or EURO on the bottle.
I see this all the time with smaller regional lubricant companies that want to make "suitable for" claims or "recommended for" claims without doing the testing to back up the product. They do it because they want to compete with the majors on a fraction of the budget. In reality though, they are cheating their customers and misleading them to infer that they meet the specification when in fact if the oil was tested, it may not.
There are lots of tricks these companies use to get around these kind of product claims - some companies offer to warranty their own product in the case of misapplication - playing the game that the cost of replacing engines in the long run will be cheaper than the cost of running the tests/registration costs. Others try to push the responsibility to their suppliers (either by buying fluid in bulk that "meets the claims" or asking the additive maker to supply "no-harms" data) Others just figure they probably won't get caught... so who cares (just look at the PQIA advisory list)
This practice is insulting to those in the industry who play by the rules, work hard, develop innovative technology, test it, participate in industry groups that develop tests and standards and want to get paid for their efforts. It represents millions in R&D and employs thousands of people worldwide. So if you claim a specification, standard, oil grade etc then you should "pay the ferryman" as the saying goes and stop trying to obfuscate and take advantage of a vastly ignorant public. (Not you personally but the companies with these unethical practices).
But I do think there is ethically something wrong with taking this approach. The ACEA specifications are designed to be evergreen, and in a global market consumers rely on companies behaving ethically by following the standards of the organization that put it out. To put a disclaimer of some kind saying you meet "AX/BY-98" may be the truth BUT it could further confuse consumers who don't understand what they are looking at when the owners' manual or oil bottle show an ACEA credential. It also dilutes the value of the ACEA credential to the companies that play by the rules.
Because this happens in the market, people start getting more confused about what an ACEA credential means and then there is greater chance for misapplication of fluids and unsatisfied customers. In my mind if you can't meet the current iterations of the specification, the way it is written by the organizing body, then you shouldn't be referring in any way to ACEA or EURO on the bottle.
I see this all the time with smaller regional lubricant companies that want to make "suitable for" claims or "recommended for" claims without doing the testing to back up the product. They do it because they want to compete with the majors on a fraction of the budget. In reality though, they are cheating their customers and misleading them to infer that they meet the specification when in fact if the oil was tested, it may not.
There are lots of tricks these companies use to get around these kind of product claims - some companies offer to warranty their own product in the case of misapplication - playing the game that the cost of replacing engines in the long run will be cheaper than the cost of running the tests/registration costs. Others try to push the responsibility to their suppliers (either by buying fluid in bulk that "meets the claims" or asking the additive maker to supply "no-harms" data) Others just figure they probably won't get caught... so who cares (just look at the PQIA advisory list)
This practice is insulting to those in the industry who play by the rules, work hard, develop innovative technology, test it, participate in industry groups that develop tests and standards and want to get paid for their efforts. It represents millions in R&D and employs thousands of people worldwide. So if you claim a specification, standard, oil grade etc then you should "pay the ferryman" as the saying goes and stop trying to obfuscate and take advantage of a vastly ignorant public. (Not you personally but the companies with these unethical practices).
Those are very nice points, Solarent. I can live with "claims," provided I can trust the oil company. If they're making claims for a good reason, as in they want to dump in some extra phosphorus, or it's a really niche lubricant (some of the 0w30 HDEOs), no problem. If they're making claims simply because they want to save money, or not actually meet the spec in the first place, but simply sell oil, that is very problematic.
Just to clarify something, I never said anyone actually cheated on ACEA claims. I simply said that any attempt to modify the words that appear on the can of oil you buy is far more difficult than you might otherwise think and cited the 'year referencing' thing as an example.
I'll give you another instance. Originally ACEA had a A2/B2 spec where you ran the same engine tests as A3/B3 but to lower limits. Everything was fine and dandy until ACEA decided to kill off A2/B2 because it felt, with the introduction of the ACEA 'C' (low SAPS) specs, there were too many oil grades. A2/B2 was officially removed from the specs but A2/B2 labeled oils persisted for several years after the change. It's just the way is...
I'll give you another instance. Originally ACEA had a A2/B2 spec where you ran the same engine tests as A3/B3 but to lower limits. Everything was fine and dandy until ACEA decided to kill off A2/B2 because it felt, with the introduction of the ACEA 'C' (low SAPS) specs, there were too many oil grades. A2/B2 was officially removed from the specs but A2/B2 labeled oils persisted for several years after the change. It's just the way is...
I'll say I've seen cheaters. I've seen examples here that claimed A1/B1 A5/B5 at the same time they claimed A3/B3 A3/B4, or claimed A3/B4 for a resource conserving 20 grade.
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Try to follow along. In the hypothetical advanced, IT DOES MEET IT. The whining has been about whether a specified version of an ACEA spec has been replaced in Europe. That makes no difference in a place outside ACEA's realm. So, if you say you meet AX/BY-98, and you meet it, you've told the truth. The fact that -98 is not the most current revision is irrelevant, because you specified exactly what you meet, and you meet it. The legal aspect comes into play when it comes try trying to enforce ACEA's 'evergreen' provision, and to _require_ compliance with all of ACEA's terms and provisions outside Europe.
The issue as brought up above (#4171736) was about claims to meet the spec "AX/BY" without a year designation.
Try to follow along. In the hypothetical advanced, IT DOES MEET IT. The whining has been about whether a specified version of an ACEA spec has been replaced in Europe. That makes no difference in a place outside ACEA's realm. So, if you say you meet AX/BY-98, and you meet it, you've told the truth. The fact that -98 is not the most current revision is irrelevant, because you specified exactly what you meet, and you meet it. The legal aspect comes into play when it comes try trying to enforce ACEA's 'evergreen' provision, and to _require_ compliance with all of ACEA's terms and provisions outside Europe.
The issue as brought up above (#4171736) was about claims to meet the spec "AX/BY" without a year designation.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
If ACEA followed in the API's footsteps and designated specs in sequence (like SG, SJ, SL, SM, SN) we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's not like it's rocket science so why make like so difficult ACEA???
They deliberately didn't want a sequential program. they wanted the old one to expire and the new one to take it's place. They wanted the nomenclature to be the same to make it easier for the consumer - if your car calls for A3/B4 you buy that oil and will automatically get the latest and greatest version of the spec, with them all being backwards compatible.
The problem is where some manufacturers try to cheat the system or claim "suitable for use" to gain a competitive advantage by misleading the customers. If every manufacturer followed ACEA's rules (regardless if they are enforceable or not here) than this wouldn't be an issue.
Just wait until December when all the current dexos1 licenses expire and everyone will have to be on the new dexos1 spec. You will see the same shenanigans. people claiming suitable for use on older specs on bulk oil when GM clearly has indicated they want all their vehicles (new and old) run on the new specification. Again no issue with the spec maker, an issue with the unethical marketers and an uneducated consumer who thinks he can save a buck because the rules don't apply to him.
If ACEA followed in the API's footsteps and designated specs in sequence (like SG, SJ, SL, SM, SN) we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's not like it's rocket science so why make like so difficult ACEA???
They deliberately didn't want a sequential program. they wanted the old one to expire and the new one to take it's place. They wanted the nomenclature to be the same to make it easier for the consumer - if your car calls for A3/B4 you buy that oil and will automatically get the latest and greatest version of the spec, with them all being backwards compatible.
The problem is where some manufacturers try to cheat the system or claim "suitable for use" to gain a competitive advantage by misleading the customers. If every manufacturer followed ACEA's rules (regardless if they are enforceable or not here) than this wouldn't be an issue.
Just wait until December when all the current dexos1 licenses expire and everyone will have to be on the new dexos1 spec. You will see the same shenanigans. people claiming suitable for use on older specs on bulk oil when GM clearly has indicated they want all their vehicles (new and old) run on the new specification. Again no issue with the spec maker, an issue with the unethical marketers and an uneducated consumer who thinks he can save a buck because the rules don't apply to him.
- Status
Similar threads
