Remember the sludge problems with Toyotas and VW. Those were do to the manufacturers recommending ocis that didn't fit the design.
CAFE standards are a political factor that effects the recommendations auto makers make.
If California gets their sb 778 senate bill pushed through you can bet it will ultimately effect their recommendations, for better or worse.
May 11, 2015
Will CA Lead the way with 10K, or is This a Requirement for Another Day?
By Thomas F. Glenn
All too often we hear that what happens in California is a harbinger of what's to come in the rest of the USA. Whether that's true or not, it's now time to take notice of California Senate Bill (SB 778), introduced by California State Senator Allen on February 27, 2015.
If it becomes law, as currently written, this bill will require all passenger car motor oil sold in California to be certified by the oil manufacturer to achieve a minimum useful life of 10,000 miles when used in accordance with the automobile manufacturer's recommendations, and to meet current automotive industry standards. The bill now goes to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. If it is approved and becomes law, it will require all automotive oil sold in the state of California to provide 10,000 miles of safe lubrication by 2018. That's close to doubling oil change intervals. Violation of these provisions would be a crime on and after January 1, 2018.
Although there are many Senate Legislature bills that come and go without becoming law, and this might be one of them, it's important to know that on May 1, 2015, the California Senate Committee approved this bill.
Whereas PQIA does not take a position with regards to this bill, the bill does surface a number of questions PQIA feels industry stakeholders and consumers should be asking and the State of California should address.
The first question is about the objective of the bill. If the objective is to protect consumers from obsolete and harmful motor oils, that's a good thing. There is no doubt that obsolete and potentially engine damaging motor oils are on retail shelves. PQIA sees this every day when it observes quart bottles of API SA, SB, and other obsolete engine oils for sale on shelves. The presence of such motor oils in the market is a concern and PQIA applauds the successful actions that the State of California already has, and continues to take to protect consumers from such products.
But that's not the sole intent of the bill. It also includes language that speaks to reducing the volume of used motor oil generated in the state. And that too is a good thing. Without question, moving drain intervals from where they currently are (approximately 6,500 miles) to 10k will reduce the volume of used oil generated in the state; but by how much, since most waste oil in the state is already collected and recycled?
Unintended consequences?
Drain intervals are serious business. Motor oil is the life blood of an engine and the "cheapest insurance" one can buy to protect what for many is their second biggest investment; their car(s). That said, it's important to change motor oil as recommended by the car manufacturer. If you don't, the motor oil can become contaminated and deteriorate to a point where it damages an engine by plugging filters and orifices and increases exposure to wear metals and abrasives which in turn cascades into additional engine wear. Further, the oil can become acidic causing corrosion of engine parts, and slip out of grade reducing fuel economy (thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions).
Understanding this, there clearly are questions that should be answered before SB 778 becomes law.
To start, do Senator Allen and backers of this bill know something car manufacturers, oil formulators, performance additive manufactures and others have yet to learn? Do they have data to clearly show that consumers can nearly double their oil change intervals without compromising the performance and durability of their car's engine?
Maybe they do. And if so, PQIA asks Senator Allen and the backers of SB 778 to make such information available to assure the bill has the backs of the consumer in the State of California. Furthermore, even if they have such data, have they checked with lubricant manufacturers to assure they are willing and ready to certify a minimum useful life of 10,000 miles, and that tests exist to prove certification? Because if they don't, consumers in California may have a long way to travel and a lot of fuel to burn getting out of state for an oil change
