Originally Posted By: CompSyn
I think a manufacturer specification is just that a specification and not a trademark. For instance, I have a quart bottle of GF-5 motor oil. It has a list of specifications on the back of it. Then only manufacturer specification that has a trademark is "GM dexos1". The other manufacturer specifications including prior GM specifications DO NOT have trademarks (TM).
I see your point there, but all that indicates to me is that GM took the bother to point out Dexos as a trademark. As I pointed out, the API considers all their specifications trademarks, without putting the "TM" there. Intellectual property rights are very complex. I suggest neither one of us are lawyers, and we are most certainly missing some of the nuances.
Originally Posted By: CompSyn
Does MB and VW have special motor oil icons and licensing that they charge royalty fees for?
That, I cannot answer. The same goes for the numbered GM, Ford, and Cummins specs. Perhaps someone with more experience and knowledge with respect to these issues can chime in. You think there is no fees for the numbered specs, whereas I think there may be, though at a reduced level.
Originally Posted By: CompSyn
The difference is that historically the American Petroleum Institute (a third party) is the governing party that determines motor oil performance specifications for North America. General Motors is an auto maker.
That's certainly true. However, what legal difference might it make? What would happen if General Motors had decided to use ACEA specs (if that's even possible)? What if General Motors decided to piggyback on some VW/Audi specs? Would there have been legal consequences?
The API isn't the only authority in this matter, either. ILSAC, ACEA, and the SAE all have input.
The API's authority in this matter exists only at the pleasure of the automakers. The Europeans have essentially decided that API and ILSAC are irrelevant, and have moved ACEA in the same direction. Recent European manuals list only their proprietary specs as mandatory, and if they do mention ACEA or API, it's only in the context of an emergency top up.
Originally Posted By: CompSyn
Didn’t the auto maker just need documentation that the testing was performed and that the oil met their specs so that they could put the oil on their approval list? NO royalty fees, NO special manufacturer licensing, No special icons. Just a confirmation that YES we the auto maker confirm that your oil meets our specification and is now added to our approval list. The only cost incurred by the oil company was the cost for testing and NOT royalty fees by the auto maker. Is this not correct?
Maybe, maybe not. I'm assuming there are licensing fees. That's almost guaranteed. I suspect API and ILSAC don't operate completely on charity or government cash. Also, as I pointed out, many boutique oils do not carry the latest certifications. Others claim to meet the specifications, but aren't approved. Even a boutique oil company gets their oil tested (it's kind of hard to be an oil formulator without having access to testing). Why would they choose to label their product as meeting a standard, yet not actually get the accreditation? Cost of licensing is the most likely answer.
Originally Posted By: CompSyn
If I use cheap dollar store (SA) rated SAE30 motor oil in my brand new 2011 GM vehicle and the oil causes an oil related failure, GM can tear down the engine and determine it was the oil that caused the failure. GM can void the warranty based on the finding of the failed part and cause thereof.
By law, what GM can’t do is automatically void my warranty without first finding the failed part and determining the cause because I used a non-dexos licensed GF-5 motor oil.
That's certainly true. Whatever oil one uses, GM would have to prove that any failure was caused by the oil, and limit warranty denial to that scope. If one ran SB oil (or even a modern conventional that wasn't approved) and the engine sludged up, GM would have a good argument to deny coverage. However, if the tranny packed it in and the engine was sludged, the tranny should be covered and the owner would be on the hook for the engine.
Aside from that, I don't think anyone is going to get anywhere by attacking the Dexos specification. As I've pointed out before, General Motors hasn't convinced me that a Malibu, driven in an average fashion, "needs" M1 or PP 5w-30. If one wishes to extend drains or drive the snot out of the things, that's another matter.
What I don't like about Dexos is the loss of freedom and how it requires fairly expensive oil for rather mudane conditions. This is just me, but GM should allow normal SN/GF-5 oil, but just make a point that one should ignore the OLM, and stick with, say, 5,000 mile OCIs (or whatever) in such a scenario, particularly with light duty trucks and the run of the mill grocery getters.
Another issue is that we're picky and opinionated about these kinds of things. The average owner, unfortunately, may not care all that much. They may be pleased about the extended OCIs and not care about the difference between a BP synthetic and a SOPUS or ExxonMobil synthetic and whatever specifications each might or might not meet.
