There's a reason the agencies have those change restrictions on the certifications. I mean, just look at the post-Katrina Mobil 1 issues.
That whole explanation sounds like a bunch of obfuscation to me.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Certification against API and ILSAC specifications is dirt cheap and, in my opinion, the lack of a such certification marks on products qualified to use them is a red flag.
According to Amsoil's FAQ, they cite other reasons (not cost) for lack of API certification.
FYI, I am not agreeing or disagreeing. Just providing info.
Quote:
Is there any flexibility in manufacturing an API-licensed formula?
Answer: API licensing was originally developed for mineral-based oils, and it affords these oils more flexibility than synthetic oils. Conventional oils comprised of petroleum base stocks may use a simple program called base stock interchange for added flexibility in manufacturing and purchasing. Interchange means that by completing the proper paperwork and running a few minor tests an oil company can choose to buy these petroleum base stocks from many different suppliers. This ensures adequate supply and competitive pricing. However, synthetic base stocks are supplier specific and base stock interchange is not allowed. For example, if a formula was tested with an ester base stock from a specific supplier then only that supplier's ester can be used. Complete engine testing would be required to use that exact same ester from another supplier and is therefore not performed because of the associated costs. This inflexibility makes price negotiations with synthetic base stock suppliers very difficult and increases business risk. Supply disruptions from only one source could shut down production.
There is also something called viscosity grade read-across. Fortunately, this applies to both petroleum and synthetic base stocks, although the better cold-temperature performance of synthetics makes it more difficult to achieve in some situations. The read-across guidelines ensure that if a manufacturer properly formulates the lubricant for which all of the API tests have been performed, then the manufacturer may use that same basic formula to make more grades (i.e. 5W-20, 5w30, 10w30, etc.) of the same motor oil.
Finally, there is a rule for substitutions in the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) code of practice that allows a small degree of flexibility for all formulas. It allows a company to make changes to certain components in the formula with limited testing and paperwork requirements, provided that the additives are at the same or higher concentration.
Quote:
Why doesn’t AMSOIL license all of its synthetic motor oils?
Answer: If all AMSOIL motor oils were API licensed, the company could not source new raw materials from multiple suppliers, which would greatly increase the threat of supply disruption and the likelihood of extraordinarily high prices. To solve this problem, the API must establish base stock interchange guidelines for synthetic base stocks just as they have for other base stocks, as well as develop interchange guidelines for other components too. Furthermore, licensing formulas limits the ability to quickly adopt new technologies as they are discovered; each variation from the originally licensed formula requires re-submission for complete engine testing (see the Ask AMSOIL entry above for more information).
