Shell Rotella T4 15w-40 Now SN Rated
- Thread starter adam8833
- Start date
Pretty sure they've been SN rated for many years now. Shell elected to not have SN rating on their Diesel oil when they went to CK-4.
Really? You knew what I meant.
It goes to the heart of this discussion. Language is important because I don’t think you can get a new SN license.
I figured there was a licensing "approval" process when trying to obtain API specifications. Is there not? I thought I'd read that's the wording they used. Approval Process. It's already been said that this oil appears to not be a "Licensed" SN oil.
I figured there was a licensing "approval" process when trying to obtain API specifications. Is there not? I thought I'd read that's the wording they used. Approval Process. It's already been said that this oil appears to not be a "Licensed" SN oil.
I found this requirements pdf. Cracking open a diet root beer...
https://www.api.org/products-and-services/engine-oil#tab-requirements
https://www.api.org/products-and-services/engine-oil/documents/api-1509-documents
https://www.api.org/-/media/files/c...iesel/publications/api 1509- 21st edition.pdf
Okay, its a big document. What I did find was this Feb 27th 2023 notification that talks about a test no longer being available but to do some other procedure for a "provisional license" to qualify for "AC GF-6A, API SP, SN, API SM, API SL, or API SJ,
including additional designations (SN PLUS and/or Resource Conserving)"
I'm not going to try and poke at the online application system, but perhaps this implies that they do still give out older API licenses.
https://ilma.org/Common/Uploaded files/pdf/SEQ_VIII_Provisional_Licensing.pdf
including additional designations (SN PLUS and/or Resource Conserving)"
I'm not going to try and poke at the online application system, but perhaps this implies that they do still give out older API licenses.
https://ilma.org/Common/Uploaded files/pdf/SEQ_VIII_Provisional_Licensing.pdf
Turns out they use the word "Approved" 90 times in that pdf document. They talk about "Approved" add packs, "Approved" engine tests, & more. Certainly seems reasonable to say "Approved" oil since "Approving" is most of the process.
I stopped reading, but did glance at licensing fees. My guess its too costly to retest, re certify after they let the annual renewal lapse. $5500 yearly, plus $.008 per gallon. For one million gallons that’s another $8k per year. Shell probably just said to the printers, just put SN there again and let’s see what BITOG does. 
https://www.api.org/products-and-services/engine-oil/application-and-fees#tab-how-to-apply
https://www.api.org/products-and-services/engine-oil/application-and-fees#tab-how-to-apply
Yes they have approved additive packs and approved tests. Of course they do. But the end is a license, not an approval.
The end is the result of approvals. That would mean approved licensed oil. The whole License process is based on approvals.
You keep trying, I'll give you that.
You keep getting whirled up about me saying "Approved Oil" as if Approvals have nothing to do with Licensing requirements. It does. Oils must get "Approvals" to get licensed period. It's reasonable to make a statement of "This oil has a CK-4 License Approval".
I'm not a lawyer, but not really. I think its an approval to be akin to a "club" member so you can put a licensed sticker on a bottle as long as you pay your annual dues and per gallon fee. The manufacturers technically "approve" but I think i've only seen they "recommend" the particular API license. Some manufacturers make up their own programs, ie BMW LL01, etc
Digging deeper on their site, they offer courses to individuals, certifications for those courses, they sell "standards" for other industries and so forth. I dont think they do any actual laboratory testing. They define the tests, check for compliance, maintain rosters, and generally do "paperwork."
Last edited:
With all due respect I find it reasonable to say "license approval" in communicating api standards. I find it hard to believe that most would have any issue & understand what I mean by that. Like I said.. probably 90% is an "approval" process to get the license itself. The license application itself needs to be "Approved" for crying out loud.
We agree that the end result is a license but I'm also being reasonable in my communication & even the PDF manual you cited had "Approval" cited 90 times. If they can use it so can I. I liken my statements to reasonableness.
You're even showing how the manufacturers have ... you guessed it... Approvals. It's no surprise I picked that word to use when I did when it's cited so much on legit licensing processes.
I'm not bound by lawyer language so it's no issue to me.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2022
- Messages
- 383
amsoil is now SN rated as well...
Grab some pic's if you can.
Man a ton of swings and misses in this thread.
For an oil to be JASO MA/MA2, it has to “meet” SN spec currently. This happened in May of 2023, with the JASO T903:2023 update.
API won’t give you the shield, because of SP, as previously mentioned. But, there was alot of controversy over the labeling (I sorta mentioned this in the other… rotella thread, the poor response I got from them when I bought this up to them, in writing) - The fact that they are JASO Ma/Ma2 but not SN.
So that’s the driver for the labeling of SN.
For an oil to be JASO MA/MA2, it has to “meet” SN spec currently. This happened in May of 2023, with the JASO T903:2023 update.
API won’t give you the shield, because of SP, as previously mentioned. But, there was alot of controversy over the labeling (I sorta mentioned this in the other… rotella thread, the poor response I got from them when I bought this up to them, in writing) - The fact that they are JASO Ma/Ma2 but not SN.
So that’s the driver for the labeling of SN.
Similar threads
