Originally Posted By: car51
Looks like a serviceable oil
In a really cool bottle...
Looks like a serviceable oil
In a really cool bottle...
Milesyn 5w30
- Thread starter SJUMBA
- Start date
- Status
dupe
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Olas
Originally Posted By: car51
It's API certified so I'd say that's good oil.
You're entitled to your "opinion" but if it's certified which it is then it's a serviceable oil
API certifications aren't worth much. Look for ACEA specs if you can't find what is listed in the OM
That's simply not true...
Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
Originally Posted By: car51
It's API certified so I'd say that's good oil.
You're entitled to your "opinion" but if it's certified which it is then it's a serviceable oil
In my opinion API is not much better than Acea. API has a web site naming bad out of spec oils and listing VOA results. It would be good if someone can post a link to that site (Petroleum Institute or something) and the near useless Acea equivalent that never lists oils withdrawn from sale after complaints.
The only real ongoing tests are done by the OEM and you can check with them for approvals. VW are not fussy and list a lot of different oils. If it's not listed by VW and has been on sale for more than a year, IT'S ONE BAD OIL!
I've never seen a negative PQIA VOA or commentary on an API certified oil, ever. I think perhaps Valvoline Next Gen had an issue with volatility IIRC, but still not a fatal flaw...
Originally Posted By: car51
It's API certified so I'd say that's good oil.
You're entitled to your "opinion" but if it's certified which it is then it's a serviceable oil
API certifications aren't worth much. Look for ACEA specs if you can't find what is listed in the OM
That's simply not true...
Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
Originally Posted By: car51
It's API certified so I'd say that's good oil.
You're entitled to your "opinion" but if it's certified which it is then it's a serviceable oil
In my opinion API is not much better than Acea. API has a web site naming bad out of spec oils and listing VOA results. It would be good if someone can post a link to that site (Petroleum Institute or something) and the near useless Acea equivalent that never lists oils withdrawn from sale after complaints.
The only real ongoing tests are done by the OEM and you can check with them for approvals. VW are not fussy and list a lot of different oils. If it's not listed by VW and has been on sale for more than a year, IT'S ONE BAD OIL!
I've never seen a negative PQIA VOA or commentary on an API certified oil, ever. I think perhaps Valvoline Next Gen had an issue with volatility IIRC, but still not a fatal flaw...
Originally Posted By: Olas
If it lists 502 or A3/B4 it's good enough, if it only lists API it's not good enough. If it lists both, refer to first point.
It really depends what you're trying to do. ACEA specifications tended to come when the API was getting slack. Another major contributing factor, however, was European manufacturers expecting way too much from an ordinary API conventional. A 12,500 km severe service interval on SJ conventional on my old Audi 200 Turbo was simply a bit too optimistic.
The oil specification certainly was weak. But, when Audi chooses to go significantly longer on an oil change interval (longer on the severe service interval than many other manufacturers went on regular service) and with a turbo, no less, there's no surprise things didn't work out. "Weak" specifications are just fine, provided one uses the products as intended.
If it lists 502 or A3/B4 it's good enough, if it only lists API it's not good enough. If it lists both, refer to first point.
It really depends what you're trying to do. ACEA specifications tended to come when the API was getting slack. Another major contributing factor, however, was European manufacturers expecting way too much from an ordinary API conventional. A 12,500 km severe service interval on SJ conventional on my old Audi 200 Turbo was simply a bit too optimistic.
The oil specification certainly was weak. But, when Audi chooses to go significantly longer on an oil change interval (longer on the severe service interval than many other manufacturers went on regular service) and with a turbo, no less, there's no surprise things didn't work out. "Weak" specifications are just fine, provided one uses the products as intended.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Olas
If it lists 502 or A3/B4 it's good enough, if it only lists API it's not good enough. If it lists both, refer to first point.
It really depends what you're trying to do. ACEA specifications tended to come when the API was getting slack. Another major contributing factor, however, was European manufacturers expecting way too much from an ordinary API conventional. A 12,500 km severe service interval on SJ conventional on my old Audi 200 Turbo was simply a bit too optimistic.
The oil specification certainly was weak. But, when Audi chooses to go significantly longer on an oil change interval (longer on the severe service interval than many other manufacturers went on regular service) and with a turbo, no less, there's no surprise things didn't work out. "Weak" specifications are just fine, provided one uses the products as intended.
Garak's post was much more mature than mine
Originally Posted By: Olas
If it lists 502 or A3/B4 it's good enough, if it only lists API it's not good enough. If it lists both, refer to first point.
It really depends what you're trying to do. ACEA specifications tended to come when the API was getting slack. Another major contributing factor, however, was European manufacturers expecting way too much from an ordinary API conventional. A 12,500 km severe service interval on SJ conventional on my old Audi 200 Turbo was simply a bit too optimistic.
The oil specification certainly was weak. But, when Audi chooses to go significantly longer on an oil change interval (longer on the severe service interval than many other manufacturers went on regular service) and with a turbo, no less, there's no surprise things didn't work out. "Weak" specifications are just fine, provided one uses the products as intended.
Garak's post was much more mature than mine
Originally Posted By: Olas
Originally Posted By: car51
I'm in the U.S.A. So ACEA doesn't mean anything to me either
The stereotypically yankcentric worldview..
You expect anything less when discussing a Yankee OEM lubrication requirement?
Originally Posted By: car51
I'm in the U.S.A. So ACEA doesn't mean anything to me either
The stereotypically yankcentric worldview..
You expect anything less when discussing a Yankee OEM lubrication requirement?
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Olas
If it lists 502 or A3/B4 it's good enough, if it only lists API it's not good enough. If it lists both, refer to first point.
It really depends what you're trying to do. ACEA specifications tended to come when the API was getting slack. Another major contributing factor, however, was European manufacturers expecting way too much from an ordinary API conventional. A 12,500 km severe service interval on SJ conventional on my old Audi 200 Turbo was simply a bit too optimistic.
The oil specification certainly was weak. But, when Audi chooses to go significantly longer on an oil change interval (longer on the severe service interval than many other manufacturers went on regular service) and with a turbo, no less, there's no surprise things didn't work out. "Weak" specifications are just fine, provided one uses the products as intended.
Some would argue that "expecting way too much from an ordinary API conventional" is what drove the development of 'better' lubes..
Originally Posted By: Olas
If it lists 502 or A3/B4 it's good enough, if it only lists API it's not good enough. If it lists both, refer to first point.
It really depends what you're trying to do. ACEA specifications tended to come when the API was getting slack. Another major contributing factor, however, was European manufacturers expecting way too much from an ordinary API conventional. A 12,500 km severe service interval on SJ conventional on my old Audi 200 Turbo was simply a bit too optimistic.
The oil specification certainly was weak. But, when Audi chooses to go significantly longer on an oil change interval (longer on the severe service interval than many other manufacturers went on regular service) and with a turbo, no less, there's no surprise things didn't work out. "Weak" specifications are just fine, provided one uses the products as intended.
Some would argue that "expecting way too much from an ordinary API conventional" is what drove the development of 'better' lubes..
Yes, but there is always more than one way to skin a cat. One can always specify a "better" lube or one can modify the existing service schedule. The Audi was extremely easy to perform an oil change on, so the push for a really long service interval might have been a bit nebulous at the time. A shorter severe service interval on conventional wouldn't have been problematic at all. In retrospect, a longer service interval on an A3/B4 type lubricant would open up the opportunity for higher HTHS with good cold cranking properties and longer service intervals, but that wasn't the norm at the time, with the importance of HTHS not so recognized.
- Status
