Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Its the R&D cost is that I was referring to. The expensive part is engineering the oil to pass the cert, I imagine that could very well could cost hundreds of K.
That, too, is a bit of a red herring. Several boutiques claim that they're suitable for whatever proprietary European specification. Now, if they claim they're suitable, there must have been some R&D involved, too. I'm hoping they didn't just throw darts at their product list and grab the product number that was struck. So, if they've done R&D to determine that it's suitable, what's the difference? One can choose to test a product and not certify it, or test a product and have it certified. At the very least, these products should be claiming, and claiming in good faith, the most current and relevant ACEA specifications.
Its the R&D cost is that I was referring to. The expensive part is engineering the oil to pass the cert, I imagine that could very well could cost hundreds of K.
That, too, is a bit of a red herring. Several boutiques claim that they're suitable for whatever proprietary European specification. Now, if they claim they're suitable, there must have been some R&D involved, too. I'm hoping they didn't just throw darts at their product list and grab the product number that was struck. So, if they've done R&D to determine that it's suitable, what's the difference? One can choose to test a product and not certify it, or test a product and have it certified. At the very least, these products should be claiming, and claiming in good faith, the most current and relevant ACEA specifications.