Oil specs: Toughest to Easiest to pass (list)
- Thread starter blackman777
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: bepperb
There are some areas, such as fuel economy, where ILSAC GF5 is more difficult than Dexos 1.
So it seems your list is somewhat arbitrary. Plus it's only your opinion that some are "ridiculously easy" and the relative differences between them.
So until you list your exact criteria (which should vary from application to application) your list seems pointless.
Assuming there was some in the first place.
Exactly. Its not in the first sentence... A link doesnt explain the OP's logic.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: bepperb
There are some areas, such as fuel economy, where ILSAC GF5 is more difficult than Dexos 1.
So it seems your list is somewhat arbitrary. Plus it's only your opinion that some are "ridiculously easy" and the relative differences between them.
So until you list your exact criteria (which should vary from application to application) your list seems pointless.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Exactly. Its not in the first sentence... A link doesnt explain the OP's logic.
Originally Posted By: Lubrizol
The performance charts are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer’s requirements.
You seem to be missing the point.
Oils are recommended based upon the demands an engine makes of them as well as the expected use of the vehicle in which it's installed.
An Insight can't make enough power to hurt itself and so calls for an API spec twenty grade.
A BMW can make enough power that a stricter standard is required, which is the reason BMW took A3 to a little higher level with LL-98 and LL-01.
API specs don't exist in a vacuum.
They're developed in cooperation with OEMs.
The Lubrizol spider chart is fun to play with, but its graphical depictions of relative performance also exaggerate the relative differences in performance.
The disclaimer is just boilerplate CYA. You'll find the same disclaimer stamped on most everything. Like my car: "High voltage battery. You will die. Honda is not responsible if you open this casing....." et cetera.
Anyway I don't recall any manual ever saying, "You are forbidden from using an oil passing a tougher specification." So if my manual says, "API SN" I still have the option of using oil that lists the tougher Dexos 2 on its label. It's extra piece of mind, and only a dollar more.
Sure, but if the engine doesn't actually need this only a dollar more oil, then you're just throwing money away.
I don't like throwing money away.
If I didn't have a stash of cheaply acquired oil, all of my cars would be on the least costly oil meeting the appropriate spec.
It's not as though making the engine last 300K will increase the lifespan of a car capable of 250K as a complete unit.
Did you buy a 1-story house made from steel I-beams? You know, for the peace of mind?
I am fine with folks wanting something better or using the what they think is "best" kinda like someone going above "code" as "code" is just a minimum , but don't dis something as "easy" because it is the industry standard just like building something to code.
Wait, dexos1 is tougher than A5/B5? Almost all 5w30 synthetics meet dexos1 standards, but only a handful are A5/B5 (PU, Edge, and M1). PP is A1/B1.
API should make the successor to SN, harmonized with ACEA. The non-RC would be equivalent to A3/B3, the RC ILSAC GF-6 would be A1/B1.
Valvoline's synthetic blends (Maxlife and Durablend) claim to meet ACEA and are supposedly 25% syn.
This thread reminds me of people that use premium in a run of the mill NA engine
Wait, am I wasting my money on Premium in my Subbie?
Kinda, the EJ25 was designed for premium (1996 redesign) and the fiddled with the EMC afterward in 1997 to take "regular" in the US market (people complained). I do see a fuel economy jump of 10-20% and it feels better with more power. Other owner also see the same. I can use regular fine but in my case Premium does not really cost any much more to use.
But you are right. If something is designed for something, use it. The Fit get good old regular and using something "better" is not better.
[quote=blackman777]The disclaimer is just boilerplate CYA. You'll find the same disclaimer stamped on most everything./quote]
It isn't boilerplate CYA at all. It's telling you it's not a literal translation of a performance specification. It's not a graph with axes, or tables of data, or test results. It's pretty pictures, and nothing more.
@tommygun: Great in theory, but what would happen to conventionals out there that couldn't pass A1/B1 A5/B5, much less A3/B4?
@Garak, what would happen? The same thing that already happened with SN: the so-called "conventionals" would actually be synthetic blends, like the SN "dino" we already have that has some group III in it.
The high-HTHS non-ILSAC grades would only need to meet A3/B3, not A3/B4. This might actually be easier than the lighter grades meeting A5/B5, and there is no fuel economy requirement in the thicker oils.
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Wait, am I wasting my money on Premium in my Subbie? .....
.....The Fit get good old regular and using something "better" is not better.
Ditto with oil.Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Did you buy a 1-story house made from steel I-beams? You know, for the peace of mind?
Who said I used anything other that TT Gas? 
It was "regular" vs "premium" aka Octane ratings.
While I do not think we will driving the fit to the junkyard as my wife wants a newer car before then, I drive all of my vehicles for their entire usable life. No issues with injectors.
However, you "ranking" of which "standards" are tougher and easier are a bit arbitrary and ignore context-specific requirements of each standard. You assert that there is added benefit from using oils that meet certain specs but those benefits are vague promises at best without any reference to the fact than many engines do not need that standard. "Peace of mind" is just what marking people want in order to upcharge you. You can change your transmission fluid/gear oil every 3,000 miles if you want peace of mind but again, it is over-engineering with no added benefit. There is a point in which "over-engineering" becomes obtuse.
While API/ILSAC could always be "tougher" the current standard is very good and for the vast majority of vehicles on the roads (and most were built before SN/GF5... average age of a car is 11 years), there is really no reason that all cars must use the highest spec-ed oil as the current "minimum standard" is more than adequate for these vehicles and the added benefit of those higher specs amount to nothing more than froghairs at best.
It was "regular" vs "premium" aka Octane ratings.
While I do not think we will driving the fit to the junkyard as my wife wants a newer car before then, I drive all of my vehicles for their entire usable life. No issues with injectors.
However, you "ranking" of which "standards" are tougher and easier are a bit arbitrary and ignore context-specific requirements of each standard. You assert that there is added benefit from using oils that meet certain specs but those benefits are vague promises at best without any reference to the fact than many engines do not need that standard. "Peace of mind" is just what marking people want in order to upcharge you. You can change your transmission fluid/gear oil every 3,000 miles if you want peace of mind but again, it is over-engineering with no added benefit. There is a point in which "over-engineering" becomes obtuse.
While API/ILSAC could always be "tougher" the current standard is very good and for the vast majority of vehicles on the roads (and most were built before SN/GF5... average age of a car is 11 years), there is really no reason that all cars must use the highest spec-ed oil as the current "minimum standard" is more than adequate for these vehicles and the added benefit of those higher specs amount to nothing more than froghairs at best.Originally Posted By: blackman777
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Did you buy a 1-story house made from steel I-beams? You know, for the peace of mind?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: tommygunn
@Garak, what would happen? The same thing that already happened with SN: the so-called "conventionals" would actually be synthetic blends, like the SN "dino" we already have that has some group III in it.
We already have few enough synthetics that meet ACEA specifications.Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: blackman777
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Did you buy a 1-story house made from steel I-beams? You know, for the peace of mind?
Last edited:
Every so often I see M1 on sale at Target for $6 but sale prices are less reliable for cost comparison. I saw Peak for $2.95 or Maxlife for $4 recently. $7.75 is the "regular" WM price and ST is $4.50-ish I think. If you go by jugs, then ST is about $3.50 per qt and M1 is about $5.... which is 42% more.
No cable here for years... No antenna too. HS internet and streaming though. There is very little I do not crunch the numbers on.
There is nothing wrong with Supertech or "WalMart" oil. It is a good oil. You are not risking you vehicle by using it unless it specifically demands something different. For the vast majority of consumers, ST is more than suitable for their DD vehicles.
You can change your oil every 700 miles for peace of mind too. If you want to spend more for something, that is fine. If you want to spend more for one product you believe is better, more power to you. However, if something is "not your thing" do not spread bad information about the "risks" for using ST... it is unsubstantiated and furthers consumer mis-information.
Here, please point to the "dangerous" aspects of ST
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/Marchsyntheticsallfinal.html
No antenna too. HS internet and streaming though. There is very little I do not crunch the numbers on.
There is nothing wrong with Supertech or "WalMart" oil. It is a good oil. You are not risking you vehicle by using it unless it specifically demands something different. For the vast majority of consumers, ST is more than suitable for their DD vehicles.
You can change your oil every 700 miles for peace of mind too. If you want to spend more for something, that is fine. If you want to spend more for one product you believe is better, more power to you. However, if something is "not your thing" do not spread bad information about the "risks" for using ST... it is unsubstantiated and furthers consumer mis-information.
Here, please point to the "dangerous" aspects of ST
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/Marchsyntheticsallfinal.html
Last edited:
- Status