Is there a difference between ILSAC GF-6a and API SP-RC?

[Ahausheer]

I have searched but cannot find a definitive answer. It seems to me that ILSAC GF-6a has the same requirements, or perhaps I should say, meets the same specifications, as API SP-RC. So my question is, If an oil is API SP-RC rated, does it also by default meet ILSAC GF-6a requirements/specs?

Much appreciated.

 

[FowVay]

In the GF-6A viscosity grades they will be the same. For higher viscosity oils such as 10W-40 and greater, ILSAC won't apply but API SP will.

ILSAC GF-6A is for 0W-20 through 10W-30.
ILSAC GF-6B is for 0W-16
API SP covers them all to include non-ILSAC viscosity grades (10W-40, 20W-50, etc)

 

[Ahausheer]

In the GF-6A viscosity grades they will be the same. For higher viscosity oils such as 10W-40 and greater, ILSAC won't apply but API SP will.

ILSAC GF-6A is for 0W-20 through 10W-30.
ILSAC GF-6B is for 0W-16
API SP covers them all to include non-ILSAC viscosity grades (10W-40, 20W-50, etc)

Is labeling a 0w-20 with API SP-RC and ILSAC GF-6a redundant? If its certified to API SP-RC, and the bottle labels the viscocity as 0w-20, why is there a need for an ILSAC GF-6a label at all?

 

[dnewton3]

Well, for one thing, the answer lays in the names of the organizations ...
The "International Lubricants Standards Approval Committee" vs. the "American Petroleum Institute".
One is international; the other specific to America.
They both exist for their own purposes.

As well explained by others, the two specs you inquire about are similar enough that they do essentially overlap. But that does not stop each entity from having their own set of standards, despite those standards being very similar in this situation.

 

[Ahausheer]

Well, for one thing, the answer lays in the names of the organizations ...
The "International Lubricants Standards Approval Committee" vs. the "American Petroleum Institute".
One is international; the other specific to America.
They both exist for their own purposes.

As well explained by others, the two specs you inquire about are similar enough that they do essentially overlap. But that does not stop each entity from having their own set of standards, despite those standards being very similar in this situation.

Nothing was particularly well explained. FowVay noted above, ''In the GF-6A viscosity grades they will be the same'', where as you say ''similar enough'' and ''essentially overlap''. This is not well explained, and is somewhat contradictory. Similar enough does not mean that by default, a 0w-20 API SP-RC will meet ILSAC GF-6a specs. It will only meet those specs if the specs are actually the same or more stringent than ILSAC's.

I see an oil that is API SP-RC and ILSAC GF-6a, and a second oil that is API SP-RC and ACEA C6. Lets assume all else is equal. I am trying to figure out if that second oil also meets the ILSAC GF-6a specs, despite not labeling it as such.

So, my question is a technical one, (asking simply out of curiosity), let me repost it - '' If a 0w-20 oil is API SP-RC rated, does it also by default meet ILSAC GF-6a requirements/specs?''

 

[FowVay]

I spelled it out in a manner I felt was clear: API SP is a standard. It encompasses the engine oil testing protocol found in the SAE J183. This is how oil standards are enacted.

ILSAC is simply a licensing agreement. ILSAC will take an API SP approved product and put their license on it "IF" it meets the resource conserving/energy conserving requirements that they desire. SAE J183 is a performance standard and does not cover fuel economy (RC/EC).

SO, if an oil carries ILSAC GF-6A then it meets API SP and also provides a fuel economy benefit. ALL ILSAC GF-6A oil meet API SP but not all API SP oils carry the ILSAC license. That's as plain as I know to explain it.

 

[Ahausheer]

I spelled it out in a manner I felt was clear: API SP is a standard. It encompasses the engine oil testing protocol found in the SAE J183. This is how oil standards are enacted.

ILSAC is simply a licensing agreement. ILSAC will take an API SP approved product and put their license on it "IF" it meets the resource conserving/energy conserving requirements that they desire. SAE J183 is a performance standard and does not cover fuel economy (RC/EC).

SO, if an oil carries ILSAC GF-6A then it meets API SP and also provides a fuel economy benefit. ALL ILSAC GF-6A oil meet API SP but not all API SP oils carry the ILSAC license. That's as plain as I know to explain it.

View attachment 162568

Thank you. I think I am starting to understand, it's all a bit confusing. To clarify, when you said, ''ALL ILSAC GF-6A oil meet API SP'', did you mean to say ''ALL ILSAC GF-6A oil meet API SP-RC''?

Also, maybe you can help me here; I have two bottles of 0w-20 oil
the first is API SP-RC and ILSAC GF-6a,
the second is API SP-RC and ACEA C6.

Is it safe to assume the second bottle also would meet ILSAC-6a requirements but is not licensed/labeled as such? Trying to figure out why they would make a seperate bottle/formulation when the second bottle seems to meet all three specs (API SP-RC, ILSAC GF-6a, and ACEA C6). Why not just have one formulation and list all three specs?

 

[FowVay]

ILSAC is a licensing agreement. If they didn't pay to license the second product then it won't carry the starburst. ACEA is a European organization so that oil might be targeting continental Europe and therefore isn't interested in the ILSAC logo. But again, if the oil does say API SP-RC then it should meet ILSAC GF-6A requirements. ACEA has concern with parameters such as HT/HS dynamic viscosities. The C6 has a minimum requirement of 2.6cP so I'm not certain that all 0W-20 API SP/ILSAC GF-6A oils meet this minimum. You need to research and verify that specifications of each product you wish compare meet your application if the bottles aren't labeled as you desire.

 

[Ahausheer]

Interesting, thank you this is great. Looks like the C6 and the API SP-RC (J300 table) both spec a minimum of 2.6cP at 150c. I also read on here that there is a ''convergence'' of API SP-RC and ACEA C6 specs. Would be interesting to know the differences, if any, but that's perhaps another thread. Thanks again.

 

[DirectRejection]

"Not backward compatible."
GF-6B.
CYA.

 

[Ahausheer]

One more question - I have found 4 oils from major companies that are ILSAC GF 6a, but only API SP (not SP-RC). I thought this was not possible as the ''6a'' specifically correlated to the resource conserving aspect of an SP oil? What am I missing?

 

[FowVay]

Forget about "RC". It's confusing you and is a redundancy. If an oil is of the viscosity grade 0W-20/30, 5W-20/30, or 10W-30 and carries the API SP then it would qualify to be ILSAC GF-6A labeled. RC simply means it resource conserving. All of the API SP viscosity grades mentioned are resource conserving. Just forget the "RC"... forget it!

Do your four oils fall into the viscosity grade I mention? If they do, and they're labeled with the API SP donut and/or have the ILSAC GF-6A starburst then that's all you're going to get. Your oils should display the API donut. The API donut will say "API SERVICE SP". It won't say "API SERVICE SP-RC". The bottom half of the donut will say "RESOURCE CONSERVING". Do your oils have this symbol? If they do then it's resource conserving.

 

[FowVay]

One more question - I have found 4 oils from major companies that are ILSAC GF 6a, but only API SP (not SP-RC).

How about snapping a photo of these oils, to include the API donut and the ILSAC starburst and any other ratings and viscosity grades so that we may see what you're talking about.

 

[Ahausheer]

How about snapping a photo of these oils, to include the API donut and the ILSAC starburst and any other ratings and viscosity grades so that we may see what you're talking about.

That will take some time but its these here :

VALVOLINE HYBRID C5 0W-20 ENGINE OIL

Mobil 1 Hybrid 0W-20

Shell Helix Hybrid OW-20

CASTROL MAGNATEC HYBRID 0W-20

I am in europe by the way and mostly looking at their EU websites. I checked photos of 3 of the bottles and the label in the photo corroborated what I have mentioned. In addition to all 4 being API SP and ILSAC GF-6a, the Valvoline also states it ''meets a performance level'' of MB 229,71. the Mobil 1 meets/matches GM 6094M, API CF, FORD WSS-M2C947-A, and the other two (Castrol and Shell) have no other approvals or specification matches.

 

[FowVay]

Alright, then if you have the names and bottles of these products then you can easily read the labels to see the ratings. Follow the recommendations set forth in the owner's manual with regard to viscosity grade and drain interval.

 

[Ahausheer]

Forget about "RC". It's confusing you and is a redundancy. If an oil is of the viscosity grade 0W-20/30, 5W-20/30, or 10W-30 and carries the API SP then it would qualify to be ILSAC GF-6A labeled. RC simply means it resource conserving. All of the API SP viscosity grades mentioned are resource conserving. Just forget the "RC"... forget it!

Do your four oils fall into the viscosity grade I mention? If they do, and they're labeled with the API SP donut and/or have the ILSAC GF-6A starburst then that's all you're going to get. Your oils should display the API donut. The API donut will say "API SERVICE SP". It won't say "API SERVICE SP-RC". The bottom half of the donut will say "RESOURCE CONSERVING". Do your oils have this symbol? If they do then it's resource conserving.

View attachment 162599

Let me know if there is a semantics issue, if we are talking about slightly different things, or if you are over simplifying because I think you may be wrong on one point.

From API's website, ''API SP with Resource Conserving matches ILSAC GF-6A by combining API SP performance with improved fuel economy, emission control system protection and protection of engines operating on ethanol-containing fuels up to E85.''

Also from oilspecifications.org '' The Resource Conserving supplemental category requires further properties. The former supplemental category, which was called Energy Conserving required only fuel saving properties from the oil. Resource Conserving requires further properties like: emission system protection, turbocharger protection. compatibility with engines operating on ethanol containing fuels, up to E-8'' Doesn't sound redundant.

This contradicts what you said above, ''If an oil is of the viscosity grade 0W-20/30, 5W-20/30, or 10W-30 and carries the API SP then it would qualify to be ILSAC GF-6A labeled'' That is seemingly incorrect, the RC part of API SP-RC, is not a redundancy as you say, it is an additional classification with additional tests/more stringent requirements and not simply contingent upon viscosity. If this is what you meant, it was not clear when you said ''would qualify'.

You can have a 0w-20 API SP that is NOT resource conserving as witnessed by the 4 examples I provided. This is another point against what you said '''If an oil is of the viscosity grade 0W-20/30, 5W-20/30, or 10W-30 and carries the API SP then it would qualify to be ILSAC GF-6A labeled''.

Do you have a source backing up what you said, or can you clarify this discrepancy?

 

[FowVay]

Write to the oil companies and ask them. Maybe they can get through to you. Thank you.

 

[Ahausheer]

Write to the oil companies and ask them. Maybe they can get through to you. Thank you

I provided two websites (one from API themselves) and 4 real world examples that contradict what you said and I also asked you for a source to back up your statement yet you provided none. I appreciate your help but if you can't clarify your seemingly incorrect statements (without being rude) then I agree, there is no point in further discussion.

 

[FowVay]

Who told you that those four examples are not resource conserving? I am curious. You seem very argumentative for a person who comes here with a question. Of the four examples you cited, three are API SP and ILSAC GF-6A and one is API SP and ACEA C5. How on earth have you concluded that they are not resource conserving?

Here is a quote directly from the API which you can Google just as easily as I: "On May 1, 2021, all products displaying the Starburst must meet API SP/Resource Conserving. "

Here is data sheet information from three of the four oils you asked about. Again, you can research this just as easily as I can. Note that each of these oils meet API SP and ILSAC GF6A. By default, that means they're RESOURCE CONSERVING! The Valvoline meets API SP and therefore is also RESOURCE CONSERVING. If you can't grasp this then I am at a loss.

Mobil-1 data sheet:

Shell Helix Hybrid data sheet:

Castrol Magnatec data sheet:

The Valvoline doesn't carry ILSAC simply because the ACEA C5 is given precedence and the product is not used in applications that would benefit from the labeling of the ILSAC standard. Quite simple.

I've spent enough time on this thread with you and you are simply here to argue so I am finished. You obviously didn't come here with a question but rather with the desire to argue and debate. Good Luck with your future inquiries. I am under no obligation to prove anything to you or anyone else on this internet forum. The information is there if you choose to read it and are able to understand it. It really is that simple.

 

[dnewton3]

Please correct me if I'm wrong here ...

The status of the API rating (SP in this case) is generally a content/parameter driven spec; it sets limits on additives such as Ca and Mg, NOACK value, etc. Those limits can be min or max, and they are to address various concerns regarding applications as time moves forward. Addressing Ca in reference to LSPI in DI engines, for just one example.

The ILSAC functions as a board to license those lubes for some applications. So goes ACEA as well. They basically classify the products into categories for identification, and if they meet the expectations of the respective grouping, they are "licensed".

The "RC" (resource conserving) API designation speaks to the viscosity of some lubes in combination with other topics; a 10w-30 may qualify as RC whereas a 10w-40 would not, even if they both were SP rated. The API rating and API RC are separate topics on the label, essentially. API RC takes the old EC topic (which was strictly viscosity driven) and now adds other topics such as content? To be RC qualified, would the lube have to meet both the API content rating AND what essentially were the old EC parameters?

Do I have those fundamentally aligned, or am I off the rails somewhere?