Oil Specification and Approvals

Messages
2,126
Location
WA
How different are the engine designs that require this many specifications? I may have some gas, diesel and obsolete specs mixed in below but I'm also sure I have missed many as well. Can't manufacturers get together and come up with some limited number of specs not to confuse the consumer? or it is entirely a money making machine? Licensing, etc. Before joining bitog, when it came to engine oil, I don't recall paying attention to the specifications as long as the viscosity grade was what I wanted ... Not saying it was a good idea but do we really need this many specjfications? BMW LONGLIFE-98 BMW LONGLIFE-01 MB-APPROVAL 229.5 MB-Approval 229.51 BMW Longlife-04 RENAULT RN0700 RENAULT RN0710 VW 502 00 VW 505 00 VW 501 01 VW 507 00 VOLVO VCC 95200356 (SERVICE FILL) JAGUAR LAND ROVER STJLR.03.5004 JAGUAR LAND ROVER STJLR.03.5003 Jaguar Land Rover STJLR.03.5005 Jaguar Land Rover STJLR.03.5007 ACEA A1 ILSAC GF-5 ACEA A5 ACEA B5 ACEA A5/B5 ACEA A3/B4 ACEA ... GM dexos1 Gen 2 GM dexos2 MAN M 3275-1 MB-Freigabe 229.1 MB-Freigabe 229.6 Porsche C30 ... VW 503 01(AUDI) GM-LL-A-025 GM-LL-B-025 FORD WSS-M2C930-A FORD WSS-M2C930-B FORD WSS-M2C925-A FORD WSS-M2C925-B FORD WSS-M2C948-B FORD WSS-M2C913-D CHRYSLER MS-6395 NISSAN MAZDA SUZUKI TOYOTA FIAT 9.55535-CR1 HONDA/ACURA HTO-06 ...
 
Messages
11,683
Location
Colorado Springs
It is NOT money making machine. Stop with that conspiracy theory malarky. VW charges approvals some $5,000. Not too expensive for XOM, don't you think? No manufacturers cannot come up together as engines are different, have different issues etc. It is not confusing (unless you own Hyundai) and you just have to follow approval your engine requires.
 

OilUzer

Thread starter
Messages
2,126
Location
WA
I was thinking maybe it's about $ since I couldn't find a good reason and it was just a guess since we live in a capitalistic world. But you are right. didn't mean to develop a new conspiracy theory. Having said that, I keep reading on this site that bearing clearances have been basically the same for the last 40 years ... what other parts of current engine designs are so different from each other that require so many different engine oil specifications? btw, I found few more specs but can't edit my original post. There maybe lots more. Who knows.
 

SR5

Messages
5,878
Location
Down Under
I think BMW LL-98 was replaced by BMW LL-01, both are high SAPS. The BMW LL-04 is the low SAPS version of LL-01. Similarly MB 229.3 was replaced by MB229.5 both are high SAPS, with MB229.51 being the low SAPS version. VW 502/505 is the high SAPS version, always given as a pair, but strictly speaking the 502 is for petrol (gas) engines and 505 is for Diesel engines. This has mostly been replaced by the low SAPS 504/507 (gas/diesel). All the above are high HTHS and so the high SAPS versions are based off ACEA A3/B4 (gas/diesel) while the low SAPS version is based off ACEA C3. These are the fundamental requirements that the OEMs above are built on. Similarly Ford 913-D is based on ACEA A5/B5 and replaces the previous 913-C and 913-B. High SAPS but low HTHS. After awhile a bit of a pattern slowly emerges. Fundamental API or ACEA base requirements that OEMs are built on. Then it's Gas or Diesel, high HTHS or low HTHS, high SAPS or low SAPS. It's more about which overlap in the Venn Diagram are you the interested in, then ignoring the rest. Sure a few random specs based on very specific tests, plus mid-SAPS oils etc. But I find they sort of group and form clusters. A good oil in the cluster you are interested in tends to carry most of the specs in that cluster. Eg in High-SAPS and high-HTHS you get Shell Helix Ultra which carries API SN, ACEA A3/B, BMW LL-01, MB 229.5, VW 502/505 and Porsche A40. It will never carry a low-SAPS or low-HTHS spec, because it isn't that type of oil.
 
Last edited:
Messages
16,602
Location
Upper Midwest
And to further what SR5 has noted, many oils carry multiple approvals or specifications so it's not as if they only carry one and you're restricted some narrow selection. Some not so much, but for the majority this is true.
 
Messages
5,351
Location
Atlanta,GA
Answers: No 1: Compatible with emissions regulations in various markets throughout the world which in part a determined by the amount of sulphur allowed in gas/diesel. No 2: Compatible with intended operating environments in various markets throughout the world. No 3: Consumer power-plant preferences within each individual market. No 4: Help reach/maintain fleetwide FE requirements. No 5: Compatible with the individual attributes of the power plant and meet acceptable wear rates. No 6: Simplify consumer choice. Only on BITOG to we get into the weeds over the presence of additional certs. For example if the United States and the EU had been synchronized with regards to sulfur levels for gasoline and diesel then half the euro oil certs would essentially disappear in these markets.
 
Last edited:

SR5

Messages
5,878
Location
Down Under
I've removed some of the older specs that are covered by the newer specs already listed, plus put some base requirements in brackets after. Just the ones I (sort of) knew off the top of my head. I'm sure some others can improve it more.
Originally Posted by OilUzer
BMW LONGLIFE-01 (A3/B4) MB-APPROVAL 229.5 (A3/B4) MB-Approval 229.51 (C3) BMW Longlife-04 (C3) RENAULT RN0700 (A3/B4) RENAULT RN0710 (A3/B4) VW 502 00 (A3/B4) VW 505 00 (A3/B4) VW 507 00 (C3) VOLVO VCC 95200356 (SERVICE FILL) JAGUAR LAND ROVER STJLR.03.5004 JAGUAR LAND ROVER STJLR.03.5003 (= Ford 913D) (A5/B5) Jaguar Land Rover STJLR.03.5005 Jaguar Land Rover STJLR.03.5007 ILSAC GF-5 ACEA A5/B5 ACEA A3/B4 GM dexos1 Gen 2 GM dexos2 (C3) MAN M 3275-1 MB-Freigabe 229.1 MB-Freigabe 229.6 Porsche C30 ... FORD WSS-M2C930-B FORD WSS-M2C925-B (5W20) FORD WSS-M2C948-B (C2 5W20) FORD WSS-M2C913-D (A5/B5 5W30) CHRYSLER MS-6395 (SN) NISSAN MAZDA SUZUKI TOYOTA FIAT 9.55535-CR1 ...
 

OilUzer

Thread starter
Messages
2,126
Location
WA
Good idea @SR5. It would be nice if there was an excel sheet showing which spec covers the others ... Like a parent spec and eliminating redundant specs. I need a more knowledgeable person to sort it out. There is some element of automakers gone wild grin2 sometimes when a new spec is out, some oil companies claim that they have already been meeting it x many years ago ... I think most good oils may already cover most of these specifications but can't print it. To be honest with you, if for example I owned a BMW and did my typical oci which is on the conservative side, and my typical driving (conservative again), I would not be afraid of using oils that don't have LL this or that. Could be wrong again but even after being on bitog for a few years, give me my viscosity with a good Noack and reasonable hths (I'm a thickie) and I am good.
 
Messages
6,225
Location
KY
I don't understand what's so difficult about it; the owners manual states the approved specs, and most every spec is relatively easy to find. I'm not going to cut corners on the vehicles in my garage.
 
Messages
11,683
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by OilUzer
Good idea @SR5. It would be nice if there was an excel sheet showing which spec covers the others ... Like a parent spec and eliminating redundant specs. I need a more knowledgeable person to sort it out. There is some element of automakers gone wild grin2 sometimes when a new spec is out, some oil companies claim that they have already been meeting it x many years ago ... I think most good oils may already cover most of these specifications but can't print it. To be honest with you, if for example I owned a BMW and did my typical oci which is on the conservative side, and my typical driving (conservative again), I would not be afraid of using oils that don't have LL this or that. Could be wrong again but even after being on bitog for a few years, give me my viscosity with a good Noack and reasonable hths (I'm a thickie) and I am good.
It is not that simple, that is why approvals exists so you do not have to guess or fall into that trap. BMW LL specifications are constantly updated, as well as MB, VW etc. It is not all about HTHS or Noack. BMW for example is not that strict on Noack (though LL01 TPT oils have Noack of 6.8%) but it is on oxidation. LL approval tests are also specific to BMW valve mechanism, valvetronic Also, BMW latest LL update has more stringent test on oil interaction with gaskets. However, BMW does not expect average customer to care about that, so they say: Use oil that is approved for LL01, and call it a day.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,225
Location
KY
Originally Posted by OilUzer
To be honest with you, if for example I owned a BMW and did my typical oci which is on the conservative side, and my typical driving (conservative again), I would not be afraid of using oils that don't have LL this or that. Could be wrong again but even after being on bitog for a few years, give me my viscosity with a good Noack and reasonable hths (I'm a thickie) and I am good.
The N12 in my R55 Clubman was using a quart of oil every 900 miles or so when I bought it; the PO had run a synthetic 5W-30 with no LL approvals. At the next oil change I switched to BMW TPT 0W-30(LL-01FE) and in less than 4000 miles oil consumption dropped by over 50%. In my opinion, using the correct oil spec in a BMW/MINI is a no-brainer.
 

OilUzer

Thread starter
Messages
2,126
Location
WA
True. in general, for average consumer that may not be a hardcore bitog member, it's best to stick with the spec and not to venture out. I agree with the comments about following the manufacturers spec. I do crazy stuff ... for example i have a relatively new 0W20 car and seriously considering using a 0W30 A3/B4 API SL while others are excited about API SN+ However, in your particular case you went to a much better 0W base oil and potentially much better Noack as well. With the average 5W you could get an inferior oil and have to do more research.
 
Messages
436
Location
Brittany, France
I believe some oils do not have the approvals for commercial reasons but are still really good. For exemple, Shell HX5 15W-40 is just rated as API SN and ACEA A3/B3 without any manufacturer's approval but it appears to be a better oil than other 15W-40 oils that carry approvals but are still rated as API SL. In this case i think it meets specs like MB 229.1 whithout question but they dont care about obsolete specs and they dont want lower end oils to sell as much as the synthetics etc.
 
Top