Not sure I want to use OEM approved oil

[Lubefan]

Here’s an idea. I sell to industrial and aviation also. They use SAE, ASTM and Mil specs. Often times when a new piece of machinery or plane engine or whatever comes out they specify the spec and often there are existing products available. Many of these Mil spec or ASTM spec test for lubricants cost between $250-$700. Yes there are teardowns on many test but it would bring uniformity across the industry.
example- GM or Ford comes out with a new engine that uses Mil spec 1234 and Brand X already has a product with that spec on Audi’s.
Consumers win with more options in the market.
Of course the OEMs lose out on a bunch of money being generated by these approvals.

 

[OVERKILL]

Here’s an idea. I sell to industrial and aviation also. They use SAE, ASTM and Mil specs. Often times when a new piece of machinery or plane engine or whatever comes out they specify the spec and often there are existing products available. Many of these Mil spec or ASTM spec test for lubricants cost between $250-$700. Yes there are teardowns on many test but it would bring uniformity across the industry.
example- GM or Ford comes out with a new engine that uses Mil spec 1234 and Brand X already has a product with that spec on Audi’s.
Consumers win with more options in the market.
Of course the OEMs lose out on a bunch of money being generated by these approvals.

We have those, they are the basic API and ACEA sequences. The thing is, many of the OEM's don't feel they are robust enough, so they come up with their own approvals, many of which incorporate these sequences but with stricter limits, others have wholly separate testing mechanisms like the Porsche Nurbrurgring lap testing rig which beats the living hell out of the oil for hours on end followed by tear down, measurement and inspection.

 

[Lubefan]

Overkill mentions the Porsche testing. I would bet oil companies producing products of this quality look at a new spec from other manufacturers with new specs and say to themselves “I know our Porsche oil exceeds this Brand X new spec but here we go again”
Incurring the time and expense of another cert process.
The obvious issue is who has the leverage. In automotive the manufacturers have the money and leverage over all the smaller people below them forcing everybody to play their game.
In the big money world of aviation and heavy industrial equipment it’s the buyers who would refuse to play their game. Thus giving the consumers the leverage.

 

[edyvw]

Overkill mentions the Porsche testing. I would bet oil companies producing products of this quality look at a new spec from other manufacturers with new specs and say to themselves “I know our Porsche oil exceeds this Brand X new spec but here we go again”
Incurring the time and expense of another cert process.
The obvious issue is who has the leverage. In automotive the manufacturers have the money and leverage over all the smaller people below them forcing everybody to play their game.
In the big money world of aviation and heavy industrial equipment it’s the buyers who would refuse to play their game. Thus giving the consumers the leverage.

A lot of what you claim you "know" is based on: I bet, here we go again.
That is NOT how it works. Oil companies and vehicle manufacturers are in constant communication about where engine demands are going. For example, BMW updated in 2018 their approvals. Mobil1 in 2015 changed the formulation of their 0W40 oil and already knew that BMW is update of approvals is coming, and that M1 0W40 cannot get LL01 approval, hence, they did not even send it for approval. What do you think how this works? One day someone wakes up in VW and says: yeah, let's do new approval?
The cost of the development of oil is high, not approval itself. Approval itself is cheap as it is in the interest of vehicle manufacturers to have as many approved oils as possible, and that makes it easier for customers to choose the right oil. If you think this is some grand conspiracy, you need a lot more to learn.

 

[edyvw]

In Europe?

Yes for VW approved oil (3000 euros), but e.g. for PSA (Peugeot/Citroen) it was 70,000 euros (83,000 $), according the folowing document
https://www.ueil.org/wp-content/uploads/UEILTechnicalBulletin_July10.pdf

For e.g. FIAT - no one (can) have approval except Petronas/Selenia.

OK, I read this. It is a problem, and obviously, oil blenders raised the issue. When we did testing we did not even bother with PSA approvals.
As for FCA, numerous oils have FCA approval. In the US FCA is using Pennzoil (Shell) not Petronas/Sellenia.

 

[OilUzer]

Nothing wrong with "OEM approved" oil as long as it's thicker than 20. We don't do 20.

If oil meets the spec then it meets the spec ...

Some recent Euro oils on the market are inexpensive ($22.xx to $24.xx per 5 qt) and they all have bunch of approvals and certs like MB, VW, BMW, Porsche , etc. I'm sure they are much better than average "OEM approved" oils!

Luckily all my cars have very simple or boring requirements like GF-4 or 5 or API SM or SN.

I'm going to feed one or two of my relatively newer cars some of the Euro oil I mentioned above and see if the engines blow up.
My older cars fall under "oil is oil" category and I buy any oil (including dino) as long as they have a relatively low Noack.

 

[DS9]

Really? Have you checked FCA approved oils? Numerous!
i will check that document, but company I worked for never went PSA approvals. Actually, most oils don’t have PSA approvals and price might be reason.

Thanks for reply.
Probably I wasn`t clear enough.
I was referring (in Europe) of specification like FIAT 9.55535-S1, FCA 9.55535-N2 etc.

Mopar Fiat Professional - MyFiatProfessional

fiatprofessional.mopar.eu

The uniqueness and originality of Petronas Selenia products is demonstrated by their C.T.R. (Contractual Technical Reference); a type approval, unique to each product, which is issued on the basis of tests carried out directly by Fiat.
The Contractual Technical Reference certifies the exclusive type approval of every Petronas Selenia product on behalf of the Fiat Group.
To ensure you choose the recommended products for your vehicle, simply follow the guidelines in your owner handbook.

 

[edyvw]

Thanks for reply.
Probably I wasn`t clear enough.
I was referring (in Europe) of specification like FIAT 9.55535-S1, FCA 9.55535-N2 etc.

Mopar Fiat Professional - MyFiatProfessional

fiatprofessional.mopar.eu

The uniqueness and originality of Petronas Selenia products is demonstrated by their C.T.R. (Contractual Technical Reference); a type approval, unique to each product, which is issued on the basis of tests carried out directly by Fiat.
The Contractual Technical Reference certifies the exclusive type approval of every Petronas Selenia product on behalf of the Fiat Group.
To ensure you choose the recommended products for your vehicle, simply follow the guidelines in your owner handbook.

OK, obviously FCA has some special deal with Petronas/Selenia. But, it defeats the purpose of approval which is to make it easier for customers to buy products that specific engine needs.
IMO, the way this reads is that FCA has several approvals for one engine. Approvals for everyone else, and approval for Petronas/Selenia. Does not make sense, but then it is FIAT.

 

[loneryder]

What a collection of nonsense. For one thing despite everyone’s desperate beliefs to the contrary UOA and PDS are neither a definition of quality nor do they indicate compliance with approvals and specifications.

And your assertion that an oil that just happens to have a high concentration of a certain basestock is somehow superior is also misguided. I no longer work in a research laboratory but when I did, I could have formulated you a motor oil that met all of the base stock and spectrographic analysis markers you’re describing but would have damaged your engine in short order. Assuming that story about your friend is even correct you really have no idea whether or not there was something wrong with the engine or the oil was misused by the owner in too long of an OCI or other means.

You guys that come on here and wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to approvals, specifications and licenses are barking up some weird tree. The truth is, approvals do indicate the performance of the oil in real world conditions and are an accurate indication of the quality of the finished product. We’ve heard that argument before, are you the same guy?

You are always looking for a fight aren't you kschachn! The OP is no different than other even stupid discussion starters.

 

[UG_Passat]

The manufacturer built the engine, knows it inside out and feels a certain spec would be better for the engine and their image than another spec. What's to doubt?

Remember a username RI_RS6? He doubted Audi's recommendation for oil requirements for the RS6 4.2L FSI engine due to high iron PPM's in UOA's which other people that used the Audi required oil confirmed and paid Terry Dyson as a consultant to develop the additive package for a boutique oil company.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Remember a username RI_RS6? He doubted Audi's recommendation for oil requirements for the RS6 4.2L FSI engine due to high iron PPM's in UOA's which other people that used the Audi required oil confirmed and paid Terry Dyson as a consultant to develop the additive package for a boutique oil company.

That's a little different vs saying I want do use Brand X over Brand Y based upon some subjective requirement or assumption.

 

[Drew7a]

The nonsense here is some folks give more credence to automotive manufacturer approvals over the oil formulators words. I for one am fine with “meets of exceeds” language over licensed or approved product.

Flame suit on.

 

[OVERKILL]

The nonsense here is some folks give more credence to automotive manufacturer approvals over the oil formulators words. I for one am fine with “meets of exceeds” language over licensed or approved product.

Flame suit on.

Meets or exceeds IS an official approval, it's the "recommended for" language where no approval is actually obtained and you are just going by the word of the blender.

For example, Mobil uses "Meets or exceeds" on whatever they are able to self-certify for, like the API and ACEA stuff:

 

[kschachn]

The nonsense here is some folks give more credence to automotive manufacturer approvals over the oil formulators words. I for one am fine with “meets of exceeds” language over licensed or approved product.

Flame suit on.

Considering the ridiculous length to which some unethical blenders go in the obfuscation game I'll take actual approvals anytime. Especially the ones that can be verified through publicly published lists. At least with an approval or certification you have verifiable real-world evidence of the product's performance, flashy websites with bro trucks and worthless testimonials aren't a proper substitute for proof.

Some blenders I wouldn't trust an inch given the way they write their PDS, crappy PDS and/or label may very well mean a similarly crappy product.. ExxonMobil is one that does a very good job of making it clear.

 

[OilUzer]

Meets or exceeds IS an official approval, it's the "recommended for" language where no approval is actually obtained and you are just going by the word of the blender.

For example, Mobil uses "Meets or exceeds" on whatever they are able to self-certify for, like the API and ACEA stuff:
View attachment 54792

so basically forget or ignore the "recommended for" if you can't or don't trust the oil company.

what's the difference between:
"has the following approvals" and
"meets or exceeds"?

I'm confused. Is the fox guarding the hen house?

which one has an independent verification? "Has the approval" or "meets or exceeds"?

Thanks

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Approval means the vehicle manufacturer has tested and approved it.

Meets or exceeds means the oil manufacturer/blender has said it meets the criteria, but has never actually submitted it for testing.

Kind of like Boeing said the Max was good to go

 

[OilUzer]

Approval means the vehicle manufacturer has tested and approved it.

Meets or exceeds means the oil manufacturer/blender has said it meets the criteria, but has never actually submitted it for testing.

Kind of like Boeing said the Max was good to go

I have 2 jugs of Euro 0W40 in the garage and just looked to see what's going on.

My Castrol Edge jug says:
Approved & licensed specification:

• API SN/CF
• ACEA A3/B4
• MB 229.3 / 229.5
• Porsche A40
• VW 502 00 / 505 00
• Ford WSS ...

My M1 FS jug says:
Approved against the following manufacturer spec:

• MB 229.3 / 229.5
• Porsche A40
• VW 502 00 / 505 00

Meets or exceeds the requirement of:

• API SN / SM / SL
• ACEA A3/B3 & A3/B4

Is recommended for applications requiring:

• VW 503 01

So does this mean all Castrol stuff have been independently approved? As M1 has a few under "Meets or exceeds" ...

I'm not worried about it just more of a curiosity.

 

[OVERKILL]

so basically forget or ignore the "recommended for" if you can't or don't trust the oil company.

Yes, exactly.

what's the difference between:
"has the following approvals" and
"meets or exceeds"?

I'm confused. Is the fox guarding the hen house?

which one has an independent verification? "Has the approval" or "meets or exceeds"?

Thanks

In the case of XOM and I assume the other large blenders, they are able to run all of the API and ACEA sequences in-house. Both the API approval and the ACEA sequences lay out a series of parameters/requirements for the lubricant that it must, at minimum, meet. So there are limits on all of the sequences and the oil must at worst, meet the limits imposed. Of course it can exceed the requirements (perform better than the limit allows).

These are of course organizational requirements/approvals, not OEM.

Now, some of the OEM testing, like Ford's, is just a stricter set of limits based on the API sequences, and so you'll see the Ford approvals fall under the same category. I am unsure whether they are able to self-certify for the Ford approvals or not.

When we get down to approvals with actual license numbers and sequences run by the OEM's themselves (like Porsche A40 for example, BMW LL-01...etc) Mobil puts these under the Approvals category, as they are not running these in-house and they cannot self-certify, the product needs to be approved by the OEM.

On the fox guarding the hen house remark, while Mobil is able to run all of the sequences for API/ACEA in house, many of the smaller blenders will just buy pre-approved additive packages from Infineum, Lubrizol...etc and blend it with one of the approved base oil combos to generate an approved product. So this product may not be formally tested, or not tested the way Mobil/Shell/BP would test it, at all depending on the scale of the operation in question and their resources. Since Mobil/Shell own Infineum and also produce a lot of the base stocks, it does really come down to whether you trust these orgs to QC their own products and if you do, then there's no reason to doubt their self-certification for API/ACEA either.

 

[OVERKILL]

I have 2 jugs of Euro 0W40 in the garage and just looked to see what's going on.

My Castrol Edge jug says:
Approved & licensed specification:

• API SN/CF
• ACEA A3/B4
• MB 229.3 / 229.5
• Porsche A40
• VW 502 00 / 505 00
• Ford WSS ...

My M1 FS jug says:
Approved against the following manufacturer spec:

• MB 229.3 / 229.5
• Porsche A40
• VW 502 00 / 505 00

Meets or exceeds the requirement of:

• API SN / SM / SL
• ACEA A3/B3 & A3/B4

Is recommended for applications requiring:

• VW 503 01

So does this mean all Castrol stuff have been independently approved? As M1 has a few under "Meets or exceeds" ...

I'm not worried about it just more of a curiosity.

Castrol just lumped them under one heading, Mobil broke it up based on approval type, as I noted before.

Mobil will typically "recommend" their product for approvals/specifications that are obsolete and have been superseded; no longer able to be formally approved against, usually covered by one of the newer formal approvals.

I'm a fan of how Mobil structures this, as they are quite clear as to what is what.

 

[OVERKILL]

Meets or exceeds means the oil manufacturer/blender has said it meets the criteria, but has never actually submitted it for testing.

That's incorrect, at least for the API/ACEA sequences which are required to be run on any product that states it meets or exceeds the requirements and carries the API starburst*

As I noted, Mobil and probably all of the big boys, are able to run all of those sequences in-house without involving a third party lab. Other smaller blenders that don't want to just buy pre-approved additive packages from one of the large addco's will need to utilize a 3rd party lab able to run those sequences in order to claim compliance and use the API starburst.


(*Somewhat of an exception to this is the procurement of a pre-approved additive package, which, it is my understanding, can be blended with one of the approved base oil blend combos and yield and approved product without the sequences having to be run, but these were of course already tested and approved prior to being offered)