Meet or Exceeds Requirements

[RAK]

On the back of most engine oil bottles, there is a one-liner about
oils meeting or exceeding requirements from, i.e., Ford,
GMC or Chrysler.
What does this mean, and how are those standards set?
Just curious . . . should I be looking in another part/topic of
the Forum?

 

[Quattro Pete]

This is one of those areas where you need to be careful and pay attention to actual wording. Different companies represent these mfg specs in their own way, but generally, you want it to say "has the following builder approvals" or something to that extent. This means that the oil was actually tested and passed the requirements to carry the spec. "Meets or exceeds" is more of a wishy-washy term, but it's sometimes appropriate if a given spec is based on self-certification, such as API or ACEA. See how Mobil has the various specs/approvals represented, for example:

https://mobiloil.com/en/motor-oils/mobil-1/mobil-1

 

[901Memphis]

There are tests set forth to meet specifications. Some may barely meet said requirements and others exceed them, but without the test data it's mostly marketing. Here's some info here in this pdf



https://www.infineum.com/media/80723/api-oil-engine-classifications-2013.pdf

 

[y_p_w]

The really odd one is "recommended for". ExxonMobil even says something like "According to ExxonMobil, meets XYZ".

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: y_p_w
The really odd one is "recommended for".

Translation: we think the oil will work in this application, but we have no official mfg approval to back it up.

Quote:
ExxonMobil even says something like "According to ExxonMobil, meets XYZ".

XOM says "According to ExxonMobil, [product] is of the following quality." I believe they typically state this in reference to obsolete specifications that you can't officially get approval for any longer.

 

[4WD]

I don't find it odd when some boutique oils can't be bothered with much of that stuff others have to put on the bottle or specs sheet ... SAE ... ILSAC ... new specs coming but need 2 year PoP test in my engine... ACEA ... Builder approvals ... average vehicle is ten years old etc ... lots to juggle...

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

The really odd one is "recommended for".

Translation: we think the oil will work in this application, but we have no official mfg approval to back it up.

More like, translation - Our engineers have evaluated the oil specification, and this oil would meet the specification and pass the test. We just dont want to pay a royalty on every quart of oil sold. Therefor it is not an officially licensed oil for that specification, but be assured, this oil will work fine in your application.

 

[Tom NJ]

The term "Meets or exceeds" (a given specification) is a definitive statement. If the product fails any of the referenced specification tests or was not tested, then the statement is not valid and the marketer is misleading the consumer.

This term, however, is not the same as "Approved" or "Certified" under or against a given specification or by an OEM. Approved or certified means the product or its data was reviewed or tested by a certifying authority (e.g. API, ILSAC, ACEA) or a manufacturer (e.g. Ford, GM) and formally approved. Such products are usually listed on an approved list or carry a certification mark (e.g. API Donut, API Starburst, GM dexos1).

"Recommended for", "Suitable for", "Meets the performance requirements of", and "Of the quality of" are usually manufacturer's opinions based on their knowledge of the formulation and specification as opposed to a full analysis against the specification. These terms are not definitive, and one would be wise to assume that not all of the specifications tests were actually run and passed. If all of the tests were run and passed, a clearer, more definitive statement could have and should have been made. This doesn't mean the product is bad, only that it may vary from the formal specification in some way, good or bad. For example, if a little more ZDDP is added to boost anti-wear properties, the oil will fail the SN specification but may have better performance in some respects. However, if the manufacturer does not explain the specification variance, I would be suspicious of their suitability claim.

TomNJ/VA

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

The really odd one is "recommended for".

Translation: we think the oil will work in this application, but we have no official mfg approval to back it up.

More like, translation - Our engineers have evaluated the oil specification, and this oil would meet the specification and pass the test. We just dont want to pay a royalty on every quart of oil sold. Therefor it is not an officially licensed oil for that specification, but be assured, this oil will work fine in your application.

I was thinking Amsoil, but they have enough volume that they could afford the tests. Still - I remember a few years back the contention was that they didn't necessarily meet all the requirements for the latest API gasoline engine specs because they boosted ZDDP level and justified that claiming that very little of it would get by the rings and to the cat.

Now Red Line is another matter, although I'm pretty sure they fudge the specs too.

 

[KL31]

Do they pay royalty for every quart or is it just a once off approval test they pay for and maybe have to prove each year???

So this is from Castrol Australia:

PERFORMANCE LEVELS
Castrol EDGE 5W-30 A3/B4 surpasses a wide range of specifications and has numerous
manufacturer approvals and is suitable where the following requirements are called for:
American Petroleum Institute (API) Service Classifications
Petrol : SL*, (SJ, SH and all superseded classifications):
Diesel : CF
ACEA A3/B4, High performance shear stable petrol/diesel engine oil
BMW Longlife – 01
VW 502 00/ 505 00
MB Approval 229.3, 229.5
* Passes all engine test performance requirements of API SN and SM but exceeds
Phosphorus limits of those classifications.

"Has numerous manufacturer approvals" [censored] does that mean, maybe a couple of the listed ones but they aren't saying?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: y_p_w
I was thinking Amsoil, but they have enough volume that they could afford the tests.

They do claim formal engine manufacturer approvals on some of their oils.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime
More like, translation - Our engineers have evaluated the oil specification, and this oil would meet the specification and pass the test. We just dont want to pay a royalty on every quart of oil sold. Therefor it is not an officially licensed oil for that specification, but be assured, this oil will work fine in your application.

That's your interpretation.

And that's the whole point: if you don't have the official approval, then everything you say is left to one's own interpretation.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
More like, translation - Our engineers have evaluated the oil specification, and this oil would meet the specification and pass the test. We just dont want to pay a royalty on every quart of oil sold. Therefor it is not an officially licensed oil for that specification, but be assured, this oil will work fine in your application.

That's your interpretation.

And that's the whole point: if you don't have the official approval, then everything you say is left to one's own interpretation.


Yes exactly.

It may also mean that we never tested it at all but out of all the oils we sell we think it is the most suitable.
Or it may mean that when we look at the requirements for that certification this oil meets more of the requirements of any of our other oils.
Or it may mean that we did test it but it failed on one or more of the tests, but it did pass the others.
Or it may mean that we would test it (testing really isn't that expensive) but we like to keep the mystique of being an uncertified oil so we just aren't going to do it.
Or it may mean that this oil would pass but we are out of spec on one aspect so technically it fails.

Or just about anything.

 

[RAK]

Wow---all you guys need to come together and write a book on this!
Very much appreciate your input and insights!

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
The term "Meets or exceeds" (a given specification) is a definitive statement. If the product fails any of the referenced specification tests or was not tested, then the statement is not valid and the marketer is misleading the consumer.

This term, however, is not the same as "Approved" or "Certified" under or against a given specification or by an OEM. Approved or certified means the product or its data was reviewed or tested by a certifying authority (e.g. API, ILSAC, ACEA) or a manufacturer (e.g. Ford, GM) and formally approved. Such products are usually listed on an approved list or carry a certification mark (e.g. API Donut, API Starburst, GM dexos1).

"Recommended for", "Suitable for", "Meets the performance requirements of", and "Of the quality of" are usually manufacturer's opinions based on their knowledge of the formulation and specification as opposed to a full analysis against the specification. These terms are not definitive, and one would be wise to assume that not all of the specifications tests were actually run and passed. If all of the tests were run and passed, a clearer, more definitive statement could have and should have been made. This doesn't mean the product is bad, only that it may vary from the formal specification in some way, good or bad. For example, if a little more ZDDP is added to boost anti-wear properties, the oil will fail the SN specification but may have better performance in some respects. However, if the manufacturer does not explain the specification variance, I would be suspicious of their suitability claim.

TomNJ/VA


This is the best response in this thread.

 

[mjoekingz28]

I think I started a thread a while back about how an oil could exceed a spec.

Say to meet the spec it must have Sodium in the range of 900-1500ppm, so how can you exceed that.

Maybe it is marketing speak, OR maybe the engineers give the nod to the oil being fine for use in whatever spec it is suggested for. Now, whether or not the certification crew decides to actually seek out the actual approved (ie, getting the Dexos logo versus just claiming it is good enough for Dexos specified engines).

 

[Silk]

Originally Posted By: KL31
Castrol EDGE 5W-30
"Has numerous manufacturer approvals"[/i
[censored] does that mean, maybe a couple of the listed ones but they aren't saying?


Mitsubishi NZ use it, but in their own containers. So I guess Mitsi approve.

 

[TiredTrucker]

I just look at the oil as the blender states. They say it meets a spec, I have no problem using it if it is the oil I choose and meets my other criteria. I have yet to have an engine failure in 45 years by not using oils that are on some OEM "approved" list. Even for my commercial stuff. Matter of fact, I don't think that I have ever used an oil that was listed on OEM "approved" sheets, but then, I really don't go out of my way to research "approved" oil OEM sheets. Not that I wanted to avoid them, just that the oil I chose to run was not on the "approved" list, the rare times I have checked, but met the spec that the engine called for. I can understand the reasoning why some would do it. I just don't suffer from an enlarged paranoia gland. I look at the OEM manual for the spec it calls for, and then select an oil I want to use that meets the spec. Simple. I even vary sometimes outside what the OEM claims I need to use for viscosity, but I generally follow that more often than not.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
The term "Meets or exceeds" (a given specification) is a definitive statement. If the product fails any of the referenced specification tests or was not tested, then the statement is not valid and the marketer is misleading the consumer.

This term, however, is not the same as "Approved" or "Certified" under or against a given specification or by an OEM. Approved or certified means the product or its data was reviewed or tested by a certifying authority (e.g. API, ILSAC, ACEA) or a manufacturer (e.g. Ford, GM) and formally approved. Such products are usually listed on an approved list or carry a certification mark (e.g. API Donut, API Starburst, GM dexos1).

"Recommended for", "Suitable for", "Meets the performance requirements of", and "Of the quality of" are usually manufacturer's opinions based on their knowledge of the formulation and specification as opposed to a full analysis against the specification. These terms are not definitive, and one would be wise to assume that not all of the specifications tests were actually run and passed. If all of the tests were run and passed, a clearer, more definitive statement could have and should have been made. This doesn't mean the product is bad, only that it may vary from the formal specification in some way, good or bad. For example, if a little more ZDDP is added to boost anti-wear properties, the oil will fail the SN specification but may have better performance in some respects. However, if the manufacturer does not explain the specification variance, I would be suspicious of their suitability claim.

TomNJ/VA


Well said, this should be a sticky.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
I just look at the oil as the blender states. They say it meets a spec, I have no problem using it if it is the oil I choose and meets my other criteria. I have yet to have an engine failure in 45 years by not using oils that are on some OEM "approved" list. Even for my commercial stuff. Matter of fact, I don't think that I have ever used an oil that was listed on OEM "approved" sheets, but then, I really don't go out of my way to research "approved" oil OEM sheets. Not that I wanted to avoid them, just that the oil I chose to run was not on the "approved" list, the rare times I have checked, but met the spec that the engine called for. I can understand the reasoning why some would do it. I just don't suffer from an enlarged paranoia gland. I look at the OEM manual for the spec it calls for, and then select an oil I want to use that meets the spec. Simple. I even vary sometimes outside what the OEM claims I need to use for viscosity, but I generally follow that more often than not.

The only one I remember was Valvoline Premium Blue, which was specifically approved by Cummins. The odd thing about it was that earlier versions carried no API donut, but had the specific builder approvals.

My dad used to drive a 1984 Mercedes-Benz 300D-Turbo. I had a look at the owner's manual and associated stuff that came with it. It had some interesting stuff like a coupon (actually one page of the manual itself) that could be used for dealer installation of a block heater. The other thing was a list of approved motor oils for this vehicle. It was really weird too since it included names that I'd never heard of before. Some of them were pretty easy to find like Quaker State (the dealer he took it to used QS 20W-40), 76, some Pennzoil, etc. However, they had some European names like Duckhams. It seemed a bit odd that there were brands that were pretty rare in the US, if there was even an importer.