- Jun 26, 2003
Don't we already have such indications with the API donut? We don't need yet another, consumers need to read their owners manual (most are on-line if you didn't get one with your car) and read the portion where it describes the oil to use. It specifies what to look for on the bottle. So the proof that an oil meets the necessary standards is already on the bottle. There is no need for a stand alone mechanism to tell the consumer it meets the standard. There is a standard means of marking the product. The consumer needs to do his due diligence, read the manual and choose the appropriate oil.
Originally Posted By: Johnny2Bad
They should require a compliance sticker on the oil (NOT incorporated in the label, but a distinct add-on). That way every type could still be available for sale, an educated consumer can determine if they want to run the otherwise good non-compliant oil with no sticker, and the true junk won't have the sticker, or will have a counterfeit sticker that the State can nail them with a fine for. Hit them in the pocket book and pretty soon there's no incentive to fake it. I'm pretty sure you could introduce a little consumer education at point-of-sale in stores that sell good oil, and I expect a few State-sponsored TV ads could easily be squeezed into the existing media budget. Government loves to tell us how wonderful they are. California is a big enough market that it won't be a cost burden to the oil manufacturers to have to add the sticker to the product, and once Cali does it, it becomes just as cheap to manufacturers when another State adopts the same regulation. Even if you don't do it that way, I am surprised these otherwise fine oils can't be sold with a "for racing engine use only" limitation rather than an outright ban. But maybe they are worried that it would only make the junk oil seem more attractive to the average idiot.