PAO (up to 70%) in some Lucas Synthetics

[4WD]

My point of view is not that complicated on this company. I know their power steering fluid worked well for me … and if they sell a Dexos approved oil at a great price I might use it.
If an open mind (yeah, I know) just soaks up the title of the thread … they are not exactly cutting it short on base stock.

 

[kschachn]

No I did not say that.

So what to do then?

 

[UncleDave]

So what to do then?

It's a conundrum sometimes the term "meets or exceeds X" is bogus, other times true.

Going back a few years one bottle of M1 0w-40 on the shelf had all kinds of specs on the jug, the one next to it less than half.

Did the oil change that much jug to jug - Or did Mobil get sick of paying the freight?

 

[edyvw]

You sure about that ? I dont see how the anyone can run and or enforce a standard without some sort of licensing fee.

Here is the API license and fee structure.

https://www.api.org/products-and-services/engine-oil/application-and-fees#tab-fees
Once you start adding up all the fees for all the certs that request them I'd imagine the costs start to add up pretty quickly.

Does Benz charge? BMW? How about ILSAC?

Once you agree to any volume fee now you have to track and report, invoice etcetera...

I think many of you guys underestimate the cost and complexities of what a jug of approvals and licenses actually costs.

Put Lucas aside - why would otherwise good product like Amsoil blow it off?

I know bcs. I worked with these companies on approval process. Actually I posted here on BITOG few years ago a memo from VW that charged oil company I was involved with for 3,200 euros.
They cannot enforce themselves. They relay on legal enforcement by courts. If company puts MB229.5 approval and does not have that, than MB can go after them (and it does). That is why you have this "meets" and "exceeds" garbage by these companies that do not send oil samples for a approval. Think about it: they did all the hard work, testing etc. (according to them) to prove it meets and exceeds but yet, they do not want to pay small fee to get actual approval? I worked for an oil company on testing that brings peanuts compared to Amsoil (which has some oils approved), Redline, Lucas etc. yet, they paid for approvals bcs. they are in Europe, and majority of oils there have approvals.
As for direct question about Amsoil, they do have some approvals. SOme oils do not. QUestion is why some oils have some approvals and not other approvals. Only explanation is that particular oil can be actually approved for certain specification but not others as each specification has its own variables that are more stringent than others. For example MB229.5 is very stringent on Noack and deposits. BMW is extremely stringent on oxidation. Just bcs. oil is approved for BMW specification does not mean it can be approved for MB. But, most serious companies have these numerous approvals bcs. their oils are actually that good.

 

[edyvw]

It's a conundrum sometimes the term "meets or exceeds X" is bogus, other times true.

Going back a few years one bottle of M1 0w-40 on the shelf had all kinds of specs on the jug, the one next to it less than half.

Did the oil change that much jug to jug - Or did Mobil get sick of paying the freight?

M1 changed oil and manufacturers updated their specifications. Most notably BMW introduced update to LL01 and LL04 (M1 0W40 being in LL01 category) in 2018 where they made already stringent oxidation requirements more stringent. Composition of 0W40 oils does not fare well under those requirements and M1 does not have LL01 as well as others.
It still has MB229.5 which is most comprehensive approval as well as Porsche A40.

 

[UncleDave]

M1 changed oil and manufacturers updated their specifications. Most notably BMW introduced update to LL01 and LL04 (M1 0W40 being in LL01 category) in 2018 where they made already stringent oxidation requirements more stringent. Composition of 0W40 oils does not fare well under those requirements and M1 does not have LL01 as well as others.
It still has MB229.5 which is most comprehensive approval as well as Porsche A40.

I think 229.52 is even harder to achieve.

 

[edyvw]

I think 229.52 is even harder to achieve.

That is different category. MB229.52 is Low to MID-SAPS oil. It is designed for vehicles with DPF/GPF. M1 0W40 is not designed for those vehicles.

 

[UncleDave]

That is different category. MB229.52 is Low to MID-SAPS oil. It is designed for vehicles with DPF/GPF. M1 0W40 is not designed for those vehicles.

Not saying its the same - bad analogy.

Let me proffer a different question.

Is there any name that can be trusted using the term "meets or exceeds" vs pursuing a cert/spec/ license ?

 

[edyvw]

Not saying its the same - bad analogy.

Let me proffer a different question.

Is there any name that can be trusted using the term "meets or exceeds" vs pursuing a cert/spec/ license ?

Trusted is very subjective term. I mean Redline, Amsoil are on the market for a long time and play this game. Lucas for me is too much into bombastic advertising to be believed. Would I put Redline? I use their gear oils in my Toyota.I am about to put their D4 in my manual gearbox in BMW. I would use their oils.
Would I put their 5W30 Euro that is designed for vehicles with DPF/GPF in my X5 diesel I had that had DPF? Probably not.
Point is that these oils would probably never get approvals bcs. of certain performance aspects. That does not mean they will bomb your engine. I sue M1 0W40 in BMW though it does not have LL01. But that is bcs. my engine is older one, and new updates on LL01 are targeting new generation of engines. So I would and probably will try Redline in BMW. Would I do it in post 2012 BMW? No.
So, it is subjective. But not all people are BITOG-ers where everything has to be looking needle in they haystack. 99.999999% of drivers could not care less. ANd that is why approvals are created.

 

[UncleDave]

Oils like LL-01 could carry every spec of every oil thats less stringent - but you dont see that on the bottle.

IF the cert/license/ spec cost were as trivial as all that then we'd see every spec on every bottle thats under it - but we dont.


"Mobil 1 Extended Performance meets or exceeds the industry's toughest standards and is especially formulated to protect during longer oil change intervals."

Clearly I cannot blindly trust this.

 

[edyvw]

Oils like LL-01 could carry every spec of every oil thats less stringent - but you dont see that on the bottle.

IF the cert/license/ spec cost were as trivial as all that then we'd see every spec on every bottle thats under it - but we dont.


"Mobil 1 Extended Performance meets or exceeds the industry's toughest standards and is especially formulated to protect during longer oil change intervals."

Clearly I cannot blindly trust this.

No, again, bcs. other variables.
M1 EP is ILSAC oil. ILSAC oils are energy conserving oils, LL01 is not. LL01 min. HTHS is 3.5cp. All oils like LL01 (MB229.5, Porsche A40, VW 502.00) cannot be ILSAC oils.

 

[UncleDave]

Do you understand what I mean about about backward/downward compatibility and certs?

 

[OVERKILL]

Oils like LL-01 could carry every spec of every oil thats less stringent - but you dont see that on the bottle.

IF the cert/license/ spec cost were as trivial as all that then we'd see every spec on every bottle thats under it - but we dont.


"Mobil 1 Extended Performance meets or exceeds the industry's toughest standards and is especially formulated to protect during longer oil change intervals."

Clearly I cannot blindly trust this.

You will see "meets or exceeds" on specifications that manufacturers like XOM can self-certify for, like API SN for example or the ACEA protocols. You will see "approved to" or "approved for" or "certified to"...etc on approvals that are issued by 3rd parties like Porsche, VW, Mercedes...etc and you will see "recommended for" on either obsolete or superseded specifications or ones the manufacturer has chosen not to pony up for. This one is quite common for smaller blenders or on products that cannot meet formal approvals like many of the AMSOIL products, Redline white bottle....etc.

So, using M1 0w-40 as an example, it is quite clear what formal approvals have been issued for it, which ones XOM has self-certified for and which ones XOM either can no longer get approval for (obsolete) or has chosen not to formally approve against:

 

[UncleDave]

Totally get that- we don't see such comprehensive lists on most jugs.

To Kaschans point - when a blender vs a manufacturer publishes meets or exceeds- do we have the same level of trust?

Seems in some areas we do like Valvoline max life ATF and in some oils - Lucas we dont or wouldnt.

 

[buster]

Seems in some areas we do like Valvoline max life ATF and in some oils - Lucas we dont or wouldnt.

True, and in cases like this it falls back on the trust in the blender. I have far greater trust in Valvoline than Lucas. Valvoline has a dedicated engine lab that can run all API engine tests and certify oils.

To me, Lucas is just a crappy brand found at PepBoys. Very average to below average products.

 

[kschachn]

Totally get that- we don't see such comprehensive lists on most jugs.

To Kaschans point - when a blender vs a manufacturer publishes meets or exceeds- do we have the same level of trust?

Seems in some areas we do like Valvoline max life ATF and in some oils - Lucas we dont or wouldnt.

But Valvoline does not say "meets or exceeds", at least not for their Maxlife ATF product. They say "recommended for" which is different. In this case it is entirely based on the integrity of the blender or manufacturer.

 

[UncleDave]

But Valvoline does not say "meets or exceeds", at least not for their Maxlife ATF product. They say "recommended for" which is different. In this case it is entirely based on the integrity of the blender or manufacturer.

better yet " Recommended for"

Isn't your point about blenders that we cant always trust their integrity when wordsmithing anything resembling an approval vs declaring they meet a hard spec? (dont want to put words in anyone mouth )

 

[edyvw]

Do you understand what I mean about about backward/downward compatibility and certs?

I get backward. VW for example says specifically that VW504.00/507.00 is backward compatible with VW502.00 if ULSG is available.
Downward? No.

 

[edyvw]

Totally get that- we don't see such comprehensive lists on most jugs.

To Kaschans point - when a blender vs a manufacturer publishes meets or exceeds- do we have the same level of trust?

Seems in some areas we do like Valvoline max life ATF and in some oils - Lucas we dont or wouldnt.

For example, VW dropped VW503.01. It is obsolete approval. But, M1 is using recommended as you can still find vehicles requiring that spec.
Why they do not have all that on bottle and only in PDS is good question. More space for bombastic marketing? Bcs. while I think M1 is most transparent of these companies, they still have to sell product to local Joe who believes in 3X ultra protection.

 

[UncleDave]

I get backward. VW for example says specifically that VW504.00/507.00 is backward compatible with VW502.00 if ULSG is available.
Downward? No.

Im doing a lousy job of explaining my end sorry.

Are all oils of high enough quality to qualify for dexos 1 and 2 licensed for it?
Where MB and BMW branded oils become interchangeable - are both cross certed identically?

Usually this is no, but not always.

The answer is typically - the red tape and costs outweighs the benefit or the price point is already upside down to cater to that market. If you are already more expensive than 80% of the dexos market, paying for an additional license and volume fee to market downward may be a waste of money.

The oil may be completely interchangeable but not carry the license in which case "recommended for, or compatible with, or meets or exceeds" may be completely legit.