top 1 oil

[pb]

apologies if this has been asked already...
www.top1oil.com
curious if anyone knows more about this company? where product is sold?
i found out about it by ad banners around road atlanta race track.

 

[Olas]

They must be reasonable oils to carry A40 approval marks but I'd like to see a VOA and the companies statement on base stocks before I put it anywhere near my fill hole

 

[finmile]

The MB 229.5x specification would suggest that the fully synthetic PCMOs are great.

"Top 1 Evolution" 5W-30 synthetic oil
- ACEA A3/B3/B4-04
- ACEA C3-04
- MB 229.51
- BMW LL-04

"Top 1 Evolution OEM Series I" 5W-30/5W-40 synthetic oil
- API SL/CF
- ACEA A3/B3/B4-08
- MB 229.5
- Porsche A40 (for 5W-40)
- BMW LL-01

"Top 1 Evolution OEM Series IV" 5W-30/5W-40 synthetic oil
- API SN
- ACEA A3/B3/B4-08
- MB 229.51
- Porsche A40 (for 5W-40)
- BMW LL-04

 

[ExMachina]

Check the approved oils list from Mercedes at https://bevo.mercedes-benz.com/bevolisten/229.5_en.html
and you'll notice that two of the oils below are NOT APPROVED.

"Top 1 Evolution" 5W-30 synthetic oil
- ACEA A3/B3/B4-04
- ACEA C3-04
- MB 229.51 - not on the Mercedes list
- BMW LL-04

"Top 1 Evolution OEM Series I" 5W-30/5W-40 synthetic oil
- API SL/CF
- ACEA A3/B3/B4-08
- MB 229.5 - not on the Mercedes list
- Porsche A40 (for 5W-40)
- BMW LL-01

"Top 1 Evolution OEM Series IV" 5W-30/5W-40 synthetic oil
- API SN
- ACEA A3/B3/B4-08
- MB 229.51 - This one IS on the Mercedes list
- Porsche A40 (for 5W-40)
- BMW LL-04

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Check the approved oils list from Mercedes at https://bevo.mercedes-benz.com/bevolisten/229.5_en.html
and you'll notice that two of the oils below are NOT APPROVED.

I wonder how often that MB/bevo list gets updated.

 

[OVERKILL]

The verbiage is misleading for the Evolution oil:

Quote:
It also meets ACEA A3/B3/B4-04, MB p229.31,VW 502.00/505.00,BMW Long life – 04,MB p229.51 & ACEA C3-04 (Mid SAPS) requirements.


The last word there is the important one. It meets the REQUIREMENTS of those approvals

Whereas for the Evolution OEM:

Quote:

Approved by BMW LL-01.
5W30 Approved by MB p229.3/p229.5.
5W40 Approved by MB p229.5
Approved by VW 502.00/505.00.
5W40 is approved by Porsche A40 (Porsche does not approve 5W30 viscosity).


And this PDF confirms they are at least on the Porsche list:
www.wrightune.co.uk/downloads/approved_oils.pdf

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The verbiage is misleading for the Evolution oil:

Quote:
It also meets ACEA A3/B3/B4-04, MB p229.31,VW 502.00/505.00,BMW Long life – 04,MB p229.51 & ACEA C3-04 (Mid SAPS) requirements.


The last word there is the important one. It meets the REQUIREMENTS of those approvals

Whereas for the Evolution OEM:

Quote:

Approved by BMW LL-01.
5W30 Approved by MB p229.3/p229.5.
5W40 Approved by MB p229.5
Approved by VW 502.00/505.00.
5W40 is approved by Porsche A40 (Porsche does not approve 5W30 viscosity).


And this PDF confirms they are at least on the Porsche list:
www.wrightune.co.uk/downloads/approved_oils.pdf

I don't see that as misleading at all. They very clearly state they meet the requirements of those specs. They do not claim to be certified. What is misleading about that?

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Check the approved oils list from Mercedes at https://bevo.mercedes-benz.com/bevolisten/229.5_en.html
and you'll notice that two of the oils below are NOT APPROVED.

"Top 1 Evolution" 5W-30 synthetic oil
- ACEA A3/B3/B4-04
- ACEA C3-04
- MB 229.51 - not on the Mercedes list
- BMW LL-04

"Top 1 Evolution OEM Series I" 5W-30/5W-40 synthetic oil
- API SL/CF
- ACEA A3/B3/B4-08
- MB 229.5 - not on the Mercedes list
- Porsche A40 (for 5W-40)
- BMW LL-01

"Top 1 Evolution OEM Series IV" 5W-30/5W-40 synthetic oil
- API SN
- ACEA A3/B3/B4-08
- MB 229.51 - This one IS on the Mercedes list
- Porsche A40 (for 5W-40)
- BMW LL-04


The mfg does not claim approval/certification on their Evolution formula so not sure why you are implying they do? They claim to meet the requirements of. That is very different than claiming official approval/certification.

The Evolution OEM 1 is not on the list, and the mfg does claim approval, you are correct. However, it could be something as simple as the MB list not being fully up to date( even with a 7/2/2105 date - they can run behind in paperwork ). Maybe the oil used to be approved and is no longer and the oil mfg hasn't got their site updated yet? If it bothers you so much why not e-mail the oil mfg and ask when they received approval as they are not listed on the most current MB approved list.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The verbiage is misleading for the Evolution oil:

Quote:
It also meets ACEA A3/B3/B4-04, MB p229.31,VW 502.00/505.00,BMW Long life – 04,MB p229.51 & ACEA C3-04 (Mid SAPS) requirements.


The last word there is the important one. It meets the REQUIREMENTS of those approvals

Whereas for the Evolution OEM:

Quote:

Approved by BMW LL-01.
5W30 Approved by MB p229.3/p229.5.
5W40 Approved by MB p229.5
Approved by VW 502.00/505.00.
5W40 is approved by Porsche A40 (Porsche does not approve 5W30 viscosity).


And this PDF confirms they are at least on the Porsche list:
www.wrightune.co.uk/downloads/approved_oils.pdf

I don't see that as misleading at all. They very clearly state they meet the requirements of those specs. They do not claim to be certified. What is misleading about that?


A quick look at the posts before mine show you why it is misleading.

Putting It also meets "insert list of approvals" here and then ending it with the word requirements, you are going to have people that see that first bit and just look for their approval in the list. They never get to the "requirements" part or are confused by it.

On the other hand, if they had put: Meets the requirements of "insert list", or "is recommended for applications requiring the following approvals", it leaves much less room for error.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The verbiage is misleading for the Evolution oil:

Quote:
It also meets ACEA A3/B3/B4-04, MB p229.31,VW 502.00/505.00,BMW Long life – 04,MB p229.51 & ACEA C3-04 (Mid SAPS) requirements.


The last word there is the important one. It meets the REQUIREMENTS of those approvals

Whereas for the Evolution OEM:

Quote:

Approved by BMW LL-01.
5W30 Approved by MB p229.3/p229.5.
5W40 Approved by MB p229.5
Approved by VW 502.00/505.00.
5W40 is approved by Porsche A40 (Porsche does not approve 5W30 viscosity).


And this PDF confirms they are at least on the Porsche list:
www.wrightune.co.uk/downloads/approved_oils.pdf

I don't see that as misleading at all. They very clearly state they meet the requirements of those specs. They do not claim to be certified. What is misleading about that?


A quick look at the posts before mine show you why it is misleading.

Putting It also meets "insert list of approvals" here and then ending it with the word requirements, you are going to have people that see that first bit and just look for their approval in the list. They never get to the "requirements" part or are confused by it.

On the other hand, if they had put: Meets the requirements of "insert list", or "is recommended for applications requiring the following approvals", it leaves much less room for error.


I still don't see the confusion? They do not claim approval as they do on their other oils but rather say meets. Meets is pretty clear. It does't mean approved. I do agree it would have been better to add "the requirements of" after meets but I still do not feel it is misleading. Just a different way to write it.

 

[finmile]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
The mfg does not claim approval/certification on their Evolution formula so not sure why you are implying they do? They claim to meet the requirements of. That is very different than claiming official approval/certification.


Because English is not my native language and I find it very confusing that the manufacturer plays with words like that.

It was quite clear for me that "Recommended for this and that" => It’s only a recommendation.

But obviously I got into the trap of "meets" vs. "approved". Sorry about that

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: finmile
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
The mfg does not claim approval/certification on their Evolution formula so not sure why you are implying they do? They claim to meet the requirements of. That is very different than claiming official approval/certification.


Because English is not my native language and I find it very confusing that the manufacturer plays with words like that.

It was quite clear for me that "Recommended for this and that" => It’s only a recommendation.

But obviously I got into the trap of "meets" vs. "approved". Sorry about that

Well that is no different than me being confused if the language used was your native one. The way things are said/written between languages really varies. We do not say things exactly the same. I took Spanish in High School for 3 years. I did great at 1st when it was just learning the words and the simple phrases. I struggled when we got more serious with it and I had to adjust how I thought and said things to conform to the way they do in Spanish.

The website in question is the one for the US market. It should not be confusing to people in this country which is their target viewer( they have global sites for those in other countries ). I don't see them playing with the wording at all. Very clear to me what they are saying.

I don't mean any offense by this either as I understand your issue. I am just pointing out that you are reading something written in English for those here in the US. Your confusion is understandable. It isn't for me when those who live here and speak English say it is though. I don't get that. THAT confuses me.

Have a good day( or as you would probably say Hyvää päivänjatkoa - hope I got that rght ).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: finmile
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
The mfg does not claim approval/certification on their Evolution formula so not sure why you are implying they do? They claim to meet the requirements of. That is very different than claiming official approval/certification.


Because English is not my native language and I find it very confusing that the manufacturer plays with words like that.

It was quite clear for me that "Recommended for this and that" => It’s only a recommendation.

But obviously I got into the trap of "meets" vs. "approved". Sorry about that

Well that is no different than me being confused if the language used was your native one. The way things are said/written between languages really varies. We do not say things exactly the same. I took Spanish in High School for 3 years. I did great at 1st when it was just learning the words and the simple phrases. I struggled when we got more serious with it and I had to adjust how I thought and said things to conform to the way they do in Spanish.

The website in question is the one for the US market. It should not be confusing to people in this country which is their target viewer( they have global sites for those in other countries ). I don't see them playing with the wording at all. Very clear to me what they are saying.

I don't mean any offense by this either as I understand your issue. I am just pointing out that you are reading something written in English for those here in the US. Your confusion is understandable. It isn't for me when those who live here and speak English say it is though. I don't get that. THAT confuses me.

Have a good day( or as you would probably say Hyvää päivänjatkoa - hope I got that rght ).


Well, we had at least one English speaking American confused on that first page too

I think it depends on what somebody is looking for in the verbiage. Having it more direct, as we've already discussed, would make it more clear. Heck, we still have people showing up seemingly daily that are confused by "recommended for", which is pretty bloody self explanatory, LOL!

 

[wemay]

99.999% of consumers are not reading these labels like lawyers. They just want oil. If they read... meets the requirments, recommended for, excedes current API, etc, they should be fine because with the claims, the oil mfc is placing the onus on themselves.

I used to feel otherwise but when i look at things like an everyday consumer, i see it differently. Heck, knowing and reading the requirements past the recommended viscosity is more than most people do anyway.

 

[finmile]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Have a good day( or as you would probably say Hyvää päivänjatkoa - hope I got that rght ).


Perfect! You used the Scandinavian letters also, åäö.

Kiitos samoin

 

[finmile]

So to conclude:

Only the Evolution OEM Series I and IV are APPROVED by MB 229.5x and BMW LL-xx (and also Porsche A40 for the 40 weight) => So any reasons why these would not be great oils if the price is right?

And what about the API and ACEA specifications: The advertisement says these specs are "exceeded". So, are they "approved/certified" or only "met"? Probably the latter one?

One additional point from me: Why do they say MB p229.3/p229.5. What's the p in there?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: finmile
So to conclude:

Only the Evolution OEM Series I and IV are APPROVED by MB 229.5x and BMW LL-xx (and also Porsche A40 for the 40 weight) => So any reasons why these would not be great oils if the price is right?

I say go for it.

Quote:

And what about the API and ACEA specifications: The advertisement says these specs are "exceeded". So, are they "approved/certified" or only "met"? Probably the latter one?

The API/ACEA specs are kind of irrelevant here because a spec such as MB 229.5 far exceeds them anyway.

 

[ExMachina]

Originally Posted By: finmile
One additional point from me: Why do they say MB p229.3/p229.5. What's the p in there?
"p" means "Pretending"....

 

[finmile]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: finmile
One additional point from me: Why do they say MB p229.3/p229.5. What's the p in there?
"p" means "Pretending"....

 

[Garak]

Note that we've found another example of an oil claiming outdated ACEA specifications and listing the year of the specification in question.