Royal Purple now dexos1 certified, no Amsoil???!!

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: used_0il
So in other words, an oil company can state in their sales literature that a HDMO 0W40 meets or exceeds CJ-4/SM, but the API logo is not displayed on the product container, then the oil is neither certified or licensed?

Bingo. I think there was an example shown in another thread. I don't think we'd come across a lot of that in North America, given that there are plenty of certified examples.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: used_0il
So in other words, an oil company can state in their sales literature that a HDMO 0W40 meets or exceeds CJ-4/SM, but the API logo is not displayed on the product container, then the oil is neither certified or licensed?

Bingo. I think there was an example shown in another thread. I don't think we'd come across a lot of that in North America, given that there are plenty of certified examples.


Actually, that verbiage is consistent with companies who are able to self-certify for those items, see the PDS for D1 5w-40 for example:

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/NAXXENCVLMOMobil_Delvac_1_ESP_5W-40.aspx

Originally Posted By: XOM

Mobil Delvac 1 ESP meets or exceeds the requirements of:
API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CH-4/SM/SL
ACEA E7, E9
Caterpillar ECF-3, ECF-2
Cummins CES 20081
Twin Disc S364A


Builder approvals are in another section, and then there is yet another section that states "Mobil Delvac 1 ESP is recommended by ExxonMobil for use in applications requiring:" under which they list API CG-4.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Snoman002
NHHEMI, exactly my point. If an oil manufacture claims something to prove to be untrue then they are open to a suit. So just claiming to meet a spec without knowing if its true or not us a big risk.

As far as officially certification goes, well that's 1/2 a money grab (and IMO 100% a money grab on GM's part). If its an certification levied by a respected independent organization then I can see some sort of fee's, they have to keep the doors open after all. But GM, they could have asked for a specification to meet their needs, but decided to make their own and then charge manufactures for the privilege of putting the seal on the bottle. You can't tell me DEXOS is superior to all the other standards out there. Maybe, MAYBE, if they were using some unique 3 way catalyst, or something similar, and had to ensure that an oil without a certain addative was used, but I doubt this was the case.


Obviously if they lied they can be sued. Any business or individual who lies about something like that could be sued. My point is no oil mfg is going to intentionally do that because of that risk so talks of law suits are kind of irrelevant at least if it is a name brand oil or even a top end boutique. Some discount, no name, barely above Crisco [censored] at the quickie mart is a different story.

If a well known, reputable, oil mfg claims they meet/exceed a spec( lets say Chrysler MS6395 )there is no doubt in my mind they know exactly what that spec requires and their oils have been tested giving them the results that will back up their claim.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Actually, that verbiage is consistent with companies who are able to self-certify for those items, see the PDS for D1 5w-40 for example:

True, but I was getting more at cases where the Donut isn't there. The Delvac 1 does have the actual Donut, meaning formal API approval for CJ-4/SM. Of course, the recommended for fits well with stuff that isn't even licensed anymore, but backwards compatibility takes care of that.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Actually, that verbiage is consistent with companies who are able to self-certify for those items, see the PDS for D1 5w-40 for example:

True, but I was getting more at cases where the Donut isn't there. The Delvac 1 does have the actual Donut, meaning formal API approval for CJ-4/SM. Of course, the recommended for fits well with stuff that isn't even licensed anymore, but backwards compatibility takes care of that.


I think the language needs further clarification here, as Mobil is obviously using it in respect to formal approvals. On the other hand, if we look at what AMSOIL does for their non-API products:

Originally Posted By: AMSOIL

PPLICATIONS
AMSOIL Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil is excellent for use in all types of gasoline-fueled vehicles. It is recommended for all domestic and foreign vehicles requiring any of the listed performance specifications:

0W-30 (AZO): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…; ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1; Chrysler MS-6395; GM dexos1™ (supersedes LL-A-025, 6094M and 4718M) Fortified with detergents that exceed dexos1 sulfated ash specifications.


They don't say "meets or exceeds" on the products that don't carry the doughnut, instead, consistent with their OEM certification verbiage, they use "recommended for".

Interestingly enough, the same language is used on their API approved products

LOL!

BUT, for their formally approved Euro lube:

Originally Posted By: AMSOIL

APPLICATIONS
AMSOIL European Car Formula Mid-SAPS Synthetic Motor Oil is formulated to meet or exceed the most demanding European specifications. It is engineered for European gasoline or diesel vehicles requiring any of the following performance specifications:

Manufacturer Approvals*:

BMW Longlife-04
MB-Approval 229.51
Porsche A40
Recommended For*:

ACEA C3
API SN/SM/CF...
Chrysler MS-10850 (supersedes MS-10896)
Ford WSS-M2C917-A
GM dexos2™ (supersedes LL-A-025 and LL-B-025)
Renault RN0700/RN0710
Volkswagen 502.00/505.01

 

[Garak]

Yep, it can be all over the place. It seems that Petro-Canada and Mobil do set the gold standard when it comes to differentiating these things.