Questions for the “only oils with approvals!” crowd- API vs good oil engineering

[TiGeo]

It also says they must prove the aftermarket part caused the failure. This is basically worthless IMO because they have lawyers and engineers on staff and well you don't... If they decide to deny coverage you'll go broke and could have paid for the repair before you win, and you might win.

Also..."aftermarket" here means "still meeting the manufacturer's requirements" so Fram oil filter vs. Chrysler.....not aftermarket oil cooler with a metal reusable filter.....so my aftermarket intake/exhaust/tune...not part of this but folks sure like to think they are. "Prove they caused the failure bro." So funny.

 

[64bawagon]

It also says they must prove the aftermarket part caused the failure. This is basically worthless IMO because they have lawyers and engineers on staff and well you don't... If they decide to deny coverage you'll go broke and could have paid for the repair before you win, and you might win.

This.

 

[OVERKILL]

The red herring in the title of the original post is "...API vs good oil engineering."

In science we should be seeing certification AND good oil engineering not versus.

Certifications are there to ENSURE minimum standards are met of that certification.

They don't necessarily dictate maximum standards (unless discussing standards that actually exist to have maximums).


This is the same reason in science we have industrial standards and certifications even on the instruments we use to TEST said subjects of certification.

It's the same reason doctors have licenses to practice. They already have the schooling, the training, and the skills but the license is there to ensure to the public that minimum standards are met and to provide a system of oversight.


A boutique oil may be better in some attributes than a certified oil, it may be worse. You primarily take the boutique oil companies word for it either way quite frankly as no one is doing the certification level testing on their own.

What I hear alot in discussing if an oil is better though are things like, "I think I'd trust company X who I can call up and directly talk with their founder and get all my questions answered and they go above and beyond and they eschew the restraints put on them by oil certifications and...." Blah blah blah.

None of that is actually scientific in the least. Science relies on rigorous and controlled testing not advertising, not whether you can verbally talk to the company owner, not a few pictures of each other engines, not some anecdotal uoas.

Certifications are simply ONE tool industries use to ensure minimum standards are met. When lives count...such as in the aviation industry you will see certifications become absolutely required...not just recommended.

I think the big thing here is that you can buy an already approved additive package, and, when blended with one of the approved base oil combinations, this yields an approved product. Infineum/Afton/Lubrizol already do this work for you if you aren't XOM, Shell or BP and aren't in the business of developing your own ground-up additive packages.

Now, if you take that same additive package, and blend it with some better base oils (so, PAO instead of Group III, some AN, some ester) are you totally erasing the validity of all that testing done by the additive manufacturer? After all, you aren't changing the fundamental chemistry of the additive package.

This is a very different approach from say, Redline, where the additive package is not one that was approved, and consists of very high levels of certain additives.

But I agree that, generally, it's best to see both certifications AND good oil engineering. It does however seem that the API doesn't set the bar very high, which is why many OEM's have their own approvals, particularly the Euro marques who don't give a 2nd thought to the API and generally have their own, extensive, testing and approval process.

 

[buster]

It's not one or the other for me. It just depends on what specific oil, specification and company you're talking about.

You can like approvals and boutique oils.

 

[wareze]

Engine design plays a key role in oil performance. Some engines destroy oils

 

[buster]

Engine design plays a key role in oil performance. Some engines destroy oils

That's the most important of all. They all have a B10 rating too which isn't likely to deviate that much based on oil brand, but could to a limited extent.

 

[oil pan 4]

API cares more about keeping your catalytic converter clean than keeping the valve train clean.

 

[OVERKILL]

API cares more about keeping your catalytic converter clean than keeping the valve train clean.

Yep, that's evidenced by the focus on slashing phosphorous levels, while "low SAPS" in ACEA still has much, MUCH higher levels of phosphorous than API.

 

[bhvrdr]

I think the big thing here is that you can buy an already approved additive package, and, when blended with one of the approved base oil combinations, this yields an approved product. Infineum/Afton/Lubrizol already do this work for you if you aren't XOM, Shell or BP and aren't in the business of developing your own ground-up additive packages.

Now, if you take that same additive package, and blend it with some better base oils (so, PAO instead of Group III, some AN, some ester) are you totally erasing the validity of all that testing done by the additive manufacturer? After all, you aren't changing the fundamental chemistry of the additive package.

This is a very different approach from say, Redline, where the additive package is not one that was approved, and consists of very high levels of certain additives.

But I agree that, generally, it's best to see both certifications AND good oil engineering. It does however seem that the API doesn't set the bar very high, which is why many OEM's have their own approvals, particularly the Euro marques who don't give a 2nd thought to the API and generally have their own, extensive, testing and approval process.

I believe we are in total agreement here

Its approvals and certifications that literally guarantee or specify that this approved additive package or base is used...at all times. Remember, the APPROVED additive package is again...meeting a certification!

But with a non certified final product, the product can fade in and out of using a chemical makeup or a performance criteria that meets specifications from one day to the next or one year to the next. It doesnt matter. They're not certified. They are not under any OVERSIGHT which is what certifications guarantee.

Heck, this may actually be the non certified products claim to placate those who ask them why they arent certified, "...because we can make instantaneous changes to our product that dont require red tape involved in re certification." Thats a cop-out imo and a red flag anytime dealing with a manufacturer in my experience.

Always keep in mind, certifications are there for assurances of meeting that minimum level of quality as well as for oversight.

Two distinct functions.

So if an airplane has a catastrophic failure and they inspect a component and was certified to XYZ standards and they found it only held up to ABC standards, they can now identify that the part was not living up to its required certification, figure out why it wasnt, and correct it.

you also bring up another excellent point...

It does however seem that the API doesn't set the bar very high, which is why many OEM's have their own approvals, particularly the Euro marques who don't give a 2nd thought to the API and generally have their own, extensive, testing and approval process.

If we all look at this statement above it doesnt diminish the value of API certifications but actually speaks to their importance as they are often a bare minimum...

... and also brings into the conversation even more stringent certifications such as those from VW508 or Porsche A40, etc. These are all certifications and I agree wholeheartedly that many companies require PROOF that fluids used in their machinery are meeting their required certifications that may even include more specific or more stringent criteria than API.

 

[OVERKILL]

I believe we are in total agreement here

Its approvals and certifications that literally guarantee or specify that this approved additive package or base is used...at all times. Remember, the APPROVED additive package is again...meeting a certification!

Yep, exactly. When we start talking about products that don't use approved additive packages, as you note, these have passed none of the testing protocols, so what guarantee of performance is there really? Some bench tests.

This is, generally, why I'm philosophically OK with AMSOIL and HPL, as both are using approved additive packages, but changing up the base oil chemistry a bit, and maybe doing some FM top treat, but they leave the additive package alone.

Your point on "at all times", this is actually a concern of mine with the API, as their spot testing is pretty, ummm, "light", we'll use that term. That's why the PQIA was born, to keep tabs on this stuff.

Of course, as you note, the API sets a performance floor, which is extremely important. You can do much, MUCH worse than an API approved oil, examples would be products like City Star.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

The red herring in the title of the original post is "...API vs good oil engineering."

In science we should be seeing certification AND good oil engineering not versus.

Certifications are there to ENSURE minimum standards are met of that certification.

They don't necessarily dictate maximum standards (unless discussing standards that actually exist to have maximums).


This is the same reason in science we have industrial standards and certifications even on the instruments we use to TEST said subjects of certification.

It's the same reason doctors have licenses to practice. They already have the schooling, the training, and the skills but the license is there to ensure to the public that minimum standards are met and to provide a system of oversight.


A boutique oil may be better in some attributes than a certified oil, it may be worse. You primarily take the boutique oil companies word for it either way quite frankly as no one is doing the certification level testing on their own.

What I hear alot in discussing if an oil is better though are things like, "I think I'd trust company X who I can call up and directly talk with their founder and get all my questions answered and they go above and beyond and they eschew the restraints put on them by oil certifications and...." Blah blah blah.

None of that is actually scientific in the least. Science relies on rigorous and controlled testing not advertising, not whether you can verbally talk to the company owner, not a few pictures of each other engines, not some anecdotal uoas.

Certifications are simply ONE tool industries use to ensure minimum standards are met. When lives count...such as in the aviation industry you will see certifications become absolutely required...not just recommended.

There are minimum requirements with regards to wear etc. Just peruse the requirements under the ACEA. There are plenty of minimums or maximums listed.

Also don't give short thrift to discussions between knowledgeable customers and a company representative.

 

[bhvrdr]

There are minimum requirements with regards to wear etc. Just peruse the requirements under the ACEA. There are plenty of minimums or maximums listed.

Yes absolutely that's why I stated where you quoted me there can be both minimums and maximums.



"Also don't give short thrift to discussions between knowledgeable customers and a company representative."

Absolutely... while also realizing we should VERIFY what a representative verbally tells us.... as a verbal representation is mostly meaningless without verification.

certifications are probably the easiest way we can be provided some of these verifications.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Absolutely... while also realizing we should VERIFY what a representative verbally tells us.... as a verbal representation is mostly meaningless without verification.

That's not always practical.

 

[bhvrdr]

That's not always practical.

Yes almost nothing in life is "always"...

... but when unable to verify id suggest simply assigning MUCH less weight to a verbal and non verified utterance from a representative than from an independently verified source.

As an example, in scientific research we don't disqualify (read: ignore) sources like expert testimony, anecdotal reports, brief direct observation, small sample results, stratified results, etc but we simply assign MUCH less value to these sources than those of double blind controlled condition IV experimentation with massive samples.

...and while not "always" practical it's usually not only MORE practical to buy a certified oil but also easier and less expensive...

...which is very lucky for us because in other industries it can cost 5x or more for a certified product.

 

[TiGeo]

This.

Precisely. If the dealer and pushing on corporate and still denied, accept defeat and move on especially if it was a non-compliant aftermarket part and you are in the "but they have to prove it" camp.

 

[4WD]

Perhaps what’s missing in some perspectives - is the newer API and ESP lubes help keep ICE coming off the line faced with regulatory headwinds …

 

[Leo99]

And here is the perfect example of why certifications and standards exist.

In many applications we simply can't afford for people to "...trust" or "highly doubt" if a quality standard is or is not met.


Certifications exist to remove any such doubt.

As I said in applications where "doubt" and "trust" must be replace by scientific certainty such as the aviation industry these standards and certifications are required.

I work in pharmaceutical manufacturing. We use raw materials that have multi-compendial certifications whenever possible. We love certifications.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

First off the chances of any of this coming into play are very low with respect to a warranty oil failure.

You are conflating multiple issues here. Some of them depend on the wording of the OM.

For example VW says :



There's no "recommended" there, you MUST.

Honda says:



There's wiggle room there.

Neither one of them says "may meet" or "may conform" based on a third party claim. If it is not on the approved list or API approved it isn't period. If they don't conform/arnt approved then there is at least the potential of a peeing contest between the oil supplier and the vehicle manufacturer with you caught in the um.. spray.

Now MMWA -

First go read it, and i don't mean a third party interpretation, the actual act in current form.
Second, it is a federal law, good luck getting the feds to litigate it for you on an individual basis.

What it does for you is prevents the warranty from saying that you must use a particular product under tie in sales UNLESS they provide the product for free. So they cant say "you must use mobil 1 or castrol or toyota genuine oil" they can say you must use a product meeting a requirement.

It also says they must prove the aftermarket part caused the failure. This is basically worthless IMO because they have lawyers and engineers on staff and well you don't... If they decide to deny coverage you'll go broke and could have paid for the repair before you win, and you might win.

Just for my point, I’ve only mentioned API. I know the Euro standards (and hence the OM) will be much more specific. But Honda falls into the “recommendations”.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

And BTW, how did airplanes and drugs get into this convo? Title clearly bookended this circus into API vs better than API but not certified…

 

[bhvrdr]

And BTW, how did airplanes and drugs get into this convo? Title clearly bookended this circus into API vs better than API but not certified…

The title is about certifications vs not. The importance of certifications cannot be explained better than discussing industries that truly rely on them for their intended functions.... quality assurance and oversight.

If the title "bookended" the discussion to API versus "better than API" than the title itself is a red herring...

In other words, "What is better than API?"

An oil may meet multiple more stringent certifications than API but still be an API certified oil.


Conversely an oil may have zero certifications but be able to meet API or others had it been tested against their criteria.

Now the issue is, how would you even determine if an oil is better or even as good as an API oil if it didn't possess the certification?

Take the manufacturers word for it?

Look at a somewhat meaningless VOA and UOA?

Look at pictures of engines or filters on an Internet forum?

Hopefully none of the above.