*Meeting API SM & GF-4

[buster]

Tbn in most modern oils has been lowered. Most true API oils have a Tbn around 8-9 max. Starting Tbn can be misleading as we've seen before.

The new Mobil 1 Tbn's have made me curioius as to what is going on. I was told that in order to actually meet some of these fuel economy tests/specs, you can not have a Tbn over 10. So, there could be something to this and why Amsoil's higher end oils are not true API certified. This is is not a bad thing, but something I've noticed.

Compare Severus Inc's 0w20 oil to Amsoil's 0w20 and you will see major differences in specs.

Severus 0w20
MRV -35C is 5778
Tbn is 9
VI 175

Amsoil 0w20
MRV -35C 4069
Tbn 12.1

http://www.severusinc.com/Pages/products/auto_fleet_or.html

Severus 0w20 is Amsoil's OEM 0w20 oil. It's not on the list thought of their API approved oils. So what I am getting is whether Amsoil really does meet some of these API specifications with their SSO/ASL/ATM/ASM oils, being their counterparts that are true API certified oils, are all formulated and look identical on the spec sheet as most PCMO API synthetic oils.

In order to build a more robust oil, I'm not sure one could follow the true API guidlines hence why Amsoil does not get those oils tested. Much like Redline, they claim API SM. Severus 0w20 is listed as "SL". It's also been said you can't meet the fuel economy part of GF-4 with a 100% PAO/Ester based oil. I remember Blue99 mentioning this.

Side note, I don't care either way. It's something that I have noticed in the latest PDS's from Mobil.

So in other words, when Amsoil does make a *true* OEM/Certified oil, notice the product data sheets take a hit? Nothing new to all of this but it becomes obvious as to why some refuse to get their oils certified.

 

[buster]

It's also been stated that higher levels of detergency increase Cf, therefore lower the fuel economy. So when you look at some of the boutique oils, they are using higher levels of Ca while your true API cert oils have lowered theirs significantly and have gone with something else.

 

[jpr]

Interesting question.

I had attributed the TBN difference between SL/SM and GF-3/GF-4 to the lower phospohorus limit and the introduction of a sulfur content criteria in the latter specs. But if that were the only consideration in play, I don't see why an oil couldn't be approved to the earlier standards.

In regards to your comparison though, the API does not list the Severus 0w20 as being approved. 0w40 and 5w50 the only oil grades that are approved as Severus but not Amsoil, but unfortunatley that appears to be due to the fact that Amsoil does not offer them.

 

[buster]

True, the Severus 0w20 is not approved. I did notice however that the only approved API oils have lower Tbn and slightly different specs. These would be equivelent to the XL line.

Amsoil AFL is similar. Used to have a HT/HS of 4.2. It's now 3.7 which is what M1 0w40 is. AFL is approved by Mercedes Benz.

 

[jpr]

Has the AFL been formally and officially approved to MB 229.31/229.51 or is this one of those "...formulated to surpass the requirements of..." things?

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: jpr
Has the AFL been formally and officially approved to MB 229.31/229.51 or is this one of those "...formulated to surpass the requirements of..." things?


I *think it is approved by Mercedes. It's not approved by Porsche.

What I'm getting at here is in order to actually meet these specs, some things have to be compromised. While under warranty it's probably in everyone's best interest to use an approved oil vs taking the chance with a non approved oil. However, oils that are not approved could still be used and in some cases be better than the approved product. Kind of a use at your own risk situation.

 

[jpr]

I think the key bit is that they are claiming (or actually have, I honestly don't know) performance to MB's diesel engine specs, and not the gasoline engine specs. Similarly, they claim the BMW LL-04 standard, which is the one driven by diesel engine compatibility.

Add it all up, and it looks like it's the desire for compatibility with the particulate filters on modern diesel engines that is driving the sulfated ash content limits and consequently producing a lower TBN.

However, if you're not driving a diesel, I'm not sure what, if any, added value there is to using a MB 229.31/229.51, BMW LL-04, or API SM oil over a MB 229.3/229.5, BMW LL-01, or API SL oil.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: jpr
Has the AFL been formally and officially approved to MB 229.31/229.51 or is this one of those "...formulated to surpass the requirements of..." things?


Yes it is approved. Kind of liked the old formulation better, though.

 

[jpr]

T
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: jpr
Has the AFL been formally and officially approved to MB 229.31/229.51 or is this one of those "...formulated to surpass the requirements of..." things?


Yes it is approved. Kind of liked the old formulation better, though.
Thanks for the clarification. I don't suppose you could confirm the official status of any of the other approvals cited on Amsoil's website -
API SM/CF
ACEA C3-04
ACEA A3/B3-04
ACEA A3/B4-04
ACEA C3
BMW LL-04
Porsche
Saab
Volvo
Volkswagen 502.00, 505.00, 505.01
DaimlerChrysler MS-10725

 

[Pablo]

Amsoil has not submitted their data to any of the other listed manufacturers.

But that's NOT the intent of Buster's thread.

 

[jpr]

Thanks again - agreed it's not the intent, just an opportunistic chance on my part to get some clarification.

Back to actual issue, it sure seems like emissions, particularly diesel emisions, are the key motivator behind the newer specs and the TBN drop is just a consequential byproduct of that. I've also seen the argument made that as the permissible sulfur limits in fuel continue to drop, TBN requirements drop correpondingly.

 

[buster]

The intent of this thread is in order to meet certain API requirements, you have to conform to some similar approach in formulating. I used AFL as an example of how Amsoil lowered the HT/HS to 3.7 to meet certain criteria. Some have called this "cheapening" the product when in fact it has nothing to do with it. Many have jumped on M1 for this reason when it's not really true.

Non approved oils have their place and can be beneficial when API oils don't provide the performance called for. ie flatt tappet engines etc.

 

[buster]

Quote:
Back to actual issue, it sure seems like emissions, particularly diesel emisions, are the key motivator behind the newer specs and the TBN drop is just a consequential byproduct of that. I've also seen the argument made that as the permissible sulfur limits in fuel continue to drop, TBN requirements drop correpondingly.


I think you are correct.

 

[jpr]

Regarding the HT/HS changes, I'd guess that is consequential with the push towards increased fuel economy. While the API standards don't have a specific test, the ILSAC has a ASTM VIB test requirement and the ACEA a CEC-L-54-T-96 (aka MB M111)

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: jpr
Regarding the HT/HS changes, I'd guess that is consequential with the push towards increased fuel economy. While the API standards don't have a specific test, the ILSAC has a ASTM VIB test requirement and the ACEA a CEC-L-54-T-96 (aka MB M111)


Exactly. This is also why you can't compare oils like Redline to M1. Redline doesn't meet any of these specs AFAIK and their HT/HS is much higher resulting in lower mpg.

 

[jpr]

Originally Posted By: buster
Exactly. This is also why you can't compare oils like Redline to M1. Redline doesn't meet any of these specs AFAIK and their HT/HS is much higher resulting in lower mpg.

Perhaps I'm confusing my "boutique" oils, but aren't horsepower and mileage gains typical claims made by boosters of these oils, even if not by the manufacturers?

I certainly don't recall any of them making a point of claiming reduced mpg.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: jpr
Originally Posted By: buster
Exactly. This is also why you can't compare oils like Redline to M1. Redline doesn't meet any of these specs AFAIK and their HT/HS is much higher resulting in lower mpg.

Perhaps I'm confusing my "boutique" oils, but aren't horsepower and mileage gains typical claims made by boosters of these oils, even if not by the manufacturers?

I certainly don't recall any of them making a point of claiming reduced mpg.


They do, RP/RL in particular brag about hp gains yet I've never seen proof they do. In addition to this, Joe Gibb's Racing did testing, which is available on their webpage, between Mobil 1 R, Royal Purple, Redline and their own oil. Mobil 1 produced more power than RL/RP. Their is indeed a lot of hype in the synthetic market.

 

[buster]

http://www.joegibbsracingoil.com/trainingcenter/index.html

Test Graphs has a Hp comparison.

 

[Pablo]

http://www.joegibbsracingoil.com/trainingcenter/faq.html

Quote:
What is API?
API, the American Petroleum Institute develops standards for passenger car oils, and one of the two main considerations for street car oils are emissions regulations and equipment. All current production cars feature catalytic converters for cleaner emissions. Unfortunately, the best anti-wear additive, Zinc, harms catalytic converts. As a result, the API has been reducing the amount of Zinc it allows for the last 10 years.



I thought it was phosphorous that poisoned cats.

 

[Johnny]

I believe phosphorous is in ZDDP and in order to lower the phosphorous you have to lower the amount of ZDDP also. I don't think these are two separate additives but one being part of the other. Need one of our tribologist to clear this up.