Folks need to keep in mind that the bulk of HDEO's are used by fleet operations. They aren't into stocking a dozen different oils for every vehicle from cars on up thru semi trucks like maybe the average user does with different applications. All the vehicles are generally filled from the same bulk oil they keep in the shop. So almost every HDEO I have seen has some sort of gasoline rating, with some of the newer HDEO's, especially in the 10w30 range, having SN spec. Most seem to be SM.
Why Rotella T6 over a Euro 0w-40?
- Thread starter lukejo
- Start date
- Status
Maybe Hyundai/Kia just needs a little help with engine design?
Modern oils on reasonable drain intervals don't sludge.
The fact that the company has issued a TSB listing conflicting oil recommendations indicates that they may not have a handle on either motor oils or their engines requirements.
A recommendation of A3 or A5 or above indicates a lack of technical knowledge of what those specs mean. The ILSAC oils are all fuel economy oils and an A3 could never qualify.
It would be about as meaningful for Hyundai to recommend vanilla, chocolate or above. If Hyundai thinks that a thicker oil might be helpful, then they should simply recommend an A3/B4 and be done with it, although that would negatively impact both rated fuel economy and servicing costs for owners.
Other makers are able to recommend a single grade and spec of oil for all users in all cases.
What's wrong with Hyundai and the long ago acquired and mechanically identical Kia?
These engines aren't all that exotic as compared to those from many other makers who have no problems with recommending an oil for their engines.
There are no mysteries wrt oil recommendations from most first world manufacturers.
Honda, for example, simply recommends that you use an API 0W-20 and change it according to the IOLM/MM.
OTOH, no first world manufacturer has set itself up with the huge unfunded liability of 100K+ powertrain warranties on low end passenger cars.
After all of the above, if M1 0W-40 is a valid choice for your car, then T6 would be as well. There really isn't that much difference between them and you don't live in an area cold enough that the 0W qualification would matter.
Modern oils on reasonable drain intervals don't sludge.
The fact that the company has issued a TSB listing conflicting oil recommendations indicates that they may not have a handle on either motor oils or their engines requirements.
A recommendation of A3 or A5 or above indicates a lack of technical knowledge of what those specs mean. The ILSAC oils are all fuel economy oils and an A3 could never qualify.
It would be about as meaningful for Hyundai to recommend vanilla, chocolate or above. If Hyundai thinks that a thicker oil might be helpful, then they should simply recommend an A3/B4 and be done with it, although that would negatively impact both rated fuel economy and servicing costs for owners.
Other makers are able to recommend a single grade and spec of oil for all users in all cases.
What's wrong with Hyundai and the long ago acquired and mechanically identical Kia?
These engines aren't all that exotic as compared to those from many other makers who have no problems with recommending an oil for their engines.
There are no mysteries wrt oil recommendations from most first world manufacturers.
Honda, for example, simply recommends that you use an API 0W-20 and change it according to the IOLM/MM.
OTOH, no first world manufacturer has set itself up with the huge unfunded liability of 100K+ powertrain warranties on low end passenger cars.
After all of the above, if M1 0W-40 is a valid choice for your car, then T6 would be as well. There really isn't that much difference between them and you don't live in an area cold enough that the 0W qualification would matter.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: javacontour
If I understand correctly, the list is specifications and approvals. The list starts with specifications. SM, SL, and SH are specifications, not approvals.
The verbiage confuses me.
Specification vs. approval.. I am not sure I know the difference. If you want to get technical though, I believe they are called classifications.
T6 can be used in gas engines issue free. That much I do know.
True,
I don't think the API actually tests the oils to see if they meet the specification or classification before it goes on the label. I do believe they do random testing to ensure licensees are documenting and delivering what they say they are.
And yes, according to PQI America, they are called Service Classifications.
Of course, without the API "Donut" who knows, right?
To me, approvals implies car makers.
That's the way I read it.
I do tend to agree that specification is not the best term to use.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
If I understand correctly, the list is specifications and approvals. The list starts with specifications. SM, SL, and SH are specifications, not approvals.
The verbiage confuses me.
Specification vs. approval.. I am not sure I know the difference. If you want to get technical though, I believe they are called classifications.
T6 can be used in gas engines issue free. That much I do know.
True,
I don't think the API actually tests the oils to see if they meet the specification or classification before it goes on the label. I do believe they do random testing to ensure licensees are documenting and delivering what they say they are.
And yes, according to PQI America, they are called Service Classifications.
Of course, without the API "Donut" who knows, right?
To me, approvals implies car makers.
That's the way I read it.
I do tend to agree that specification is not the best term to use.
I think it's a great oil and is approved for all types of engines. I wouldn't worry about running it in a gas engine with good compression. The only time high zinc/phosphorus oils wreak havoc on cats is in tired engines where excessive blow by will cause it to eat up the material in the cat and ruin it from what I understand.
This may take the conversation in a completely different direction - but I've been spending some time looking closely at 0W40 HDDEO's - mostly because I was curious about why there are plenty of SN 0W40 products but only two CJ-4 products (and currently no CK-4 ) in that viscosity grade.
Here's some of the information I've collected:
First - 0W40 is a difficult grade to blend to - because of the base oil/VII mixture. Apparently it is also even more difficult with HDDEO's because the additive package is a much higher percentage than a PCMO. The HD package actually creates a thickening effect which can make it difficult to hit the low temperature CCS and MRV targets of a 0W40.
Second - because of the first issue, most HD 0W40 oils contain a high level of PAO relative to Group III, whereas in a PC product you can make a 0W40 with more Group III and so it's more economical to make. If you care about that kind of thing, T6 may have a higher PAO concentration than other 0W40 products.
Third - I'm also told that using a standard CJ-4 (or CK-4) additive package to claim suitable for use 0W40 - which some companies do, actually won't pass the full gambit of API tests. Apparently you need a focused additive package that specifically is designed for 0W40 oils. This is unlike most other HDEO's and PCMO's where all the grades use the same additive package.
I'm also told that with CK-4 some of the packages are being re-engineered to enable thinner viscosity - not just 0W40 but also 5W30 and 5W40 that have greater flexibility with Group III base oils. There isn't anyone licensing 0W40 CK-4 yet, but I expect that Rotella and Delvac will continue (they were the only license holders for CJ-4) and that there may be more to come in the future if this re-engineering of the DI is true.
Here's some of the information I've collected:
First - 0W40 is a difficult grade to blend to - because of the base oil/VII mixture. Apparently it is also even more difficult with HDDEO's because the additive package is a much higher percentage than a PCMO. The HD package actually creates a thickening effect which can make it difficult to hit the low temperature CCS and MRV targets of a 0W40.
Second - because of the first issue, most HD 0W40 oils contain a high level of PAO relative to Group III, whereas in a PC product you can make a 0W40 with more Group III and so it's more economical to make. If you care about that kind of thing, T6 may have a higher PAO concentration than other 0W40 products.
Third - I'm also told that using a standard CJ-4 (or CK-4) additive package to claim suitable for use 0W40 - which some companies do, actually won't pass the full gambit of API tests. Apparently you need a focused additive package that specifically is designed for 0W40 oils. This is unlike most other HDEO's and PCMO's where all the grades use the same additive package.
I'm also told that with CK-4 some of the packages are being re-engineered to enable thinner viscosity - not just 0W40 but also 5W30 and 5W40 that have greater flexibility with Group III base oils. There isn't anyone licensing 0W40 CK-4 yet, but I expect that Rotella and Delvac will continue (they were the only license holders for CJ-4) and that there may be more to come in the future if this re-engineering of the DI is true.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Why do some boxer engines consume oil so early ?
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Lubes are just another business line - Shell will use GIII since they make tons of it cheaper via GTL - and have an investment to recover. XOM did not go forward with the Qatar GTL plan but expanded other plants instead ...
So look at the VI and other things on Mobil 1 and Castrol 0w40 - and keep in mind those are not the two companies overloaded with GTL ...
So look at the VI and other things on Mobil 1 and Castrol 0w40 - and keep in mind those are not the two companies overloaded with GTL ...
There is a lot of misinformation getting peddled in this thread. First off, most flavours of Rotella do have a gas rating, notably SM or SN. We're talking about dual rated HDEOs here. We're not talking about two stroke diesel only oils here, which is an entirely different matter.
When we have a dual rated HDEO, we're not talking about some magically different additive package, or levels thereof that are unsuitable for gasoline engines. This is all rubbish. With respect to phosphorus levels, that's changing in several examples, and already wasn't an issue in various examples previous, notably E6 lubes. Further, A3/B4 oils have similar phosphorus levels to an ordinary HDEO. So, when the Pennzoil people tell me that Pennzoil 5w-40 A3/B4 is more suitable than Rotella 5w-40 for a gasoline engine calling for a 5w-40 in SM or newer, I call hogwash. It meets the specs, or it doesn't. In fairness, Pennzoil is more interested in selling Pennzoil than Rotella. As for Rotella's marketing strategy, it's beginning to change. Read some of the latest product literature from them. Mobil has endorsed Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 for high performance gasoline vehicles since the product came out. Just about every HDEO data sheet has already mentioned mixed fleets over the years, and TiredTrucker has covered that amply in the real world applications.
Now, as to the assertion that Rotella doesn't have a bunch of gasoline engine approvals and specifications (and this applies to Delo and Delvac and everyone else), there's a very good reason for that. Several of the specifications are mutually exclusive, which should be no surprise. You can't be GF-5 with a high HTHS, for one; phosphorus limits are neither here nor there, since an E6 lubricant will fail on HTHS for GF-5. For another, with respect to ACEA specifications, you can't combine E7, E9 or E6, E7, E9 with things like A3/B4 and A5/B5. The SA limits are different for an ordinary E7, E9 HDEO versus an A3/B4 lubricant, and the HTHS is out of whack for an A5/B5. And, any of the BMW, VW/Audi, or MB passenger car specifications are based upon A3/B4, and not upon E7 or E9, so you're simply not going to see them.
Deposits and sludge? Fear over DI? Okay. I'm sure that with magnesium additive packages and very high starting TBNs, HDEO users are really playing with fire over these issues.
I would suggest that one go and read some of Doug Hillary's posts on the topic at hand. He's dealt with bizarre assertions on that matter for a very long time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a dual rated HDEO in a gasoline engine, Rotella or not, provided one has some understanding of the specifications in question and is choosing viscosity and specifications appropriately.
Shell Rotella T6 Multi-Vehicle 5w-30, Mobil Delvac 1 LE 5w-30, and Chevron Delo 400 LE 5w-30 are some of the most modern dual rated HDEOs available on the market. Note that I intentionally left Castrol Elixion 5w-30 off the list, given that it isn't technically dual rated, though is an E6, E7, E9 lubricant.
When we have a dual rated HDEO, we're not talking about some magically different additive package, or levels thereof that are unsuitable for gasoline engines. This is all rubbish. With respect to phosphorus levels, that's changing in several examples, and already wasn't an issue in various examples previous, notably E6 lubes. Further, A3/B4 oils have similar phosphorus levels to an ordinary HDEO. So, when the Pennzoil people tell me that Pennzoil 5w-40 A3/B4 is more suitable than Rotella 5w-40 for a gasoline engine calling for a 5w-40 in SM or newer, I call hogwash. It meets the specs, or it doesn't. In fairness, Pennzoil is more interested in selling Pennzoil than Rotella. As for Rotella's marketing strategy, it's beginning to change. Read some of the latest product literature from them. Mobil has endorsed Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 for high performance gasoline vehicles since the product came out. Just about every HDEO data sheet has already mentioned mixed fleets over the years, and TiredTrucker has covered that amply in the real world applications.
Now, as to the assertion that Rotella doesn't have a bunch of gasoline engine approvals and specifications (and this applies to Delo and Delvac and everyone else), there's a very good reason for that. Several of the specifications are mutually exclusive, which should be no surprise. You can't be GF-5 with a high HTHS, for one; phosphorus limits are neither here nor there, since an E6 lubricant will fail on HTHS for GF-5. For another, with respect to ACEA specifications, you can't combine E7, E9 or E6, E7, E9 with things like A3/B4 and A5/B5. The SA limits are different for an ordinary E7, E9 HDEO versus an A3/B4 lubricant, and the HTHS is out of whack for an A5/B5. And, any of the BMW, VW/Audi, or MB passenger car specifications are based upon A3/B4, and not upon E7 or E9, so you're simply not going to see them.
Deposits and sludge? Fear over DI? Okay. I'm sure that with magnesium additive packages and very high starting TBNs, HDEO users are really playing with fire over these issues.
I would suggest that one go and read some of Doug Hillary's posts on the topic at hand. He's dealt with bizarre assertions on that matter for a very long time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a dual rated HDEO in a gasoline engine, Rotella or not, provided one has some understanding of the specifications in question and is choosing viscosity and specifications appropriately.
Shell Rotella T6 Multi-Vehicle 5w-30, Mobil Delvac 1 LE 5w-30, and Chevron Delo 400 LE 5w-30 are some of the most modern dual rated HDEOs available on the market. Note that I intentionally left Castrol Elixion 5w-30 off the list, given that it isn't technically dual rated, though is an E6, E7, E9 lubricant.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Why? T6 became very popular with owners f first generation VW TSFI engines who diluted oil like crazy. Due to its thickness, and not a lot of choices that go over 14cst, T6 became good option.
However, there are problems and that is NOACK compare to other Euro oils, especially those carrying MB 229.5 and ad pack that might create CBU.
In newer DI engines it is waste of money.
However, there are problems and that is NOACK compare to other Euro oils, especially those carrying MB 229.5 and ad pack that might create CBU.
In newer DI engines it is waste of money.
Originally Posted By: Garak
There is a lot of misinformation getting peddled in this thread. First off, most flavours of Rotella do have a gas rating, notably SM or SN. We're talking about dual rated HDEOs here. We're not talking about two stroke diesel only oils here, which is an entirely different matter.
Ain't that the truth, and some of it coming from Shell. A valuable life skill is being able to distinguish between what a lawyer told someone to say and reality.
Ed
There is a lot of misinformation getting peddled in this thread. First off, most flavours of Rotella do have a gas rating, notably SM or SN. We're talking about dual rated HDEOs here. We're not talking about two stroke diesel only oils here, which is an entirely different matter.
Ain't that the truth, and some of it coming from Shell. A valuable life skill is being able to distinguish between what a lawyer told someone to say and reality.
Ed
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
I mentioned NOACK in first reply... too high for some OEM specs too ...
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Ain't that the truth, and some of it coming from Shell. A valuable life skill is being able to distinguish between what a lawyer told someone to say and reality.
I guess it's more palatable (i.e. profitable) to sell and oil change worth of roughly 1200 ppm phosphorus containing Pennzoil Euro 5w-40 A3/B4 in single litre bottles than it is to sell a similar amount of 1200 ppm Rotella in a much more sensible container size.
With respect to misinformation here, some in this thread should note that a modern A3/B4 lubricant is already dual rated, and aside from the diesels for which it is specified, would work perfectly well in an older North American style diesel, and probably a lot of newer ones, too, if you're really not worried about SA limits. Note that there are plenty of A3/B4 lubricants that also mention CF in passing, and are a lot more capable than an actual CF lube. So, I guess A3/B4 should be kept away from gassers, too.
The B part of A3/B4 and A5/B5 does refer to diesel, after all.
Ain't that the truth, and some of it coming from Shell. A valuable life skill is being able to distinguish between what a lawyer told someone to say and reality.
I guess it's more palatable (i.e. profitable) to sell and oil change worth of roughly 1200 ppm phosphorus containing Pennzoil Euro 5w-40 A3/B4 in single litre bottles than it is to sell a similar amount of 1200 ppm Rotella in a much more sensible container size.
With respect to misinformation here, some in this thread should note that a modern A3/B4 lubricant is already dual rated, and aside from the diesels for which it is specified, would work perfectly well in an older North American style diesel, and probably a lot of newer ones, too, if you're really not worried about SA limits. Note that there are plenty of A3/B4 lubricants that also mention CF in passing, and are a lot more capable than an actual CF lube. So, I guess A3/B4 should be kept away from gassers, too.
The B part of A3/B4 and A5/B5 does refer to diesel, after all.
Originally Posted By: lukejo
Just curious, I don't run either in my vehicles...but why do so many on here run T6 in their gassers, when there are several Euro 0w-40 options. i understand T6 is a great oil, and I guess it is easily acquired more cheaply, but it seems that those who run it do so because they are wanting many of the characteristics of a Euro oil.
Just trying to learn...because I don't know.
This is a big part of the reason, IMO. It was only recently IIRC that Mobil1 0W40 and Castrol 0W40 became available at Wal Mart. Many enthusiasts will spend US$40-$60k+ on a car and will want to run the cheapest oil possible. Before the 0W40's were ) .
I think other reasons are that some enthusiasts think that "all the zinc has been removed" from typical PCMO's and they look to RT6 for higher levels of ZDDP. Also, some are probably afraid to run "Zero weight oil because it's too thin".
This thread has some good historical information by Doug Hillary about running HEDO's in gasoline engines.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2716911
Quote:
Hi,
squareznboxez - I purchased a new 2.5 Manual Outback in 2000
From about 1k (until sold at 150k) it ran only on Delvac 1 5W-40 (ESP not available then). It was a great lubricants in that application. I also ran it in various Porsche and BMW cars I owned
Where the HDEO is dual rated (C?/S?) the risk of misapplication is greatly reduced.
Quote:
Dennis - I first experimented with HDEos in petrol engines in Europe in the early 1960s when working in Copenhagen for Caltex-Chevron in a Technical position
This was prompted by various experiences, excessive engine deposits in certain engine families, "poor" petrol engine lubricant standards and motivated by the results coming out of MB and Porsche. Porsche FF in the 1950s-1960s was a Shell HDEO
I've used HDEOs in petrol engine ever since - for nearly 50 years!
This was confirmed by extensive lubricants field testing for a number of Oil Companies over several decades
Modern appropriately classified lubricants as recommended by the engine's Manufacturer have almost effectively negated their use in petrol engines today IMO
My dealings and comparisons of HDEOs started in the early 1960s. I was always motivated by the MB and CAT lubricant specifications at a time when very few existed. I've always found that Shell and Delvac products produced the cleanest engines as the end result
Just curious, I don't run either in my vehicles...but why do so many on here run T6 in their gassers, when there are several Euro 0w-40 options. i understand T6 is a great oil, and I guess it is easily acquired more cheaply, but it seems that those who run it do so because they are wanting many of the characteristics of a Euro oil.
Just trying to learn...because I don't know.
This is a big part of the reason, IMO. It was only recently IIRC that Mobil1 0W40 and Castrol 0W40 became available at Wal Mart. Many enthusiasts will spend US$40-$60k+ on a car and will want to run the cheapest oil possible. Before the 0W40's were ) .
I think other reasons are that some enthusiasts think that "all the zinc has been removed" from typical PCMO's and they look to RT6 for higher levels of ZDDP. Also, some are probably afraid to run "Zero weight oil because it's too thin".
This thread has some good historical information by Doug Hillary about running HEDO's in gasoline engines.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2716911
Quote:
Hi,
squareznboxez - I purchased a new 2.5 Manual Outback in 2000
From about 1k (until sold at 150k) it ran only on Delvac 1 5W-40 (ESP not available then). It was a great lubricants in that application. I also ran it in various Porsche and BMW cars I owned
Where the HDEO is dual rated (C?/S?) the risk of misapplication is greatly reduced.
Quote:
Dennis - I first experimented with HDEos in petrol engines in Europe in the early 1960s when working in Copenhagen for Caltex-Chevron in a Technical position
This was prompted by various experiences, excessive engine deposits in certain engine families, "poor" petrol engine lubricant standards and motivated by the results coming out of MB and Porsche. Porsche FF in the 1950s-1960s was a Shell HDEO
I've used HDEOs in petrol engine ever since - for nearly 50 years!
This was confirmed by extensive lubricants field testing for a number of Oil Companies over several decades
Modern appropriately classified lubricants as recommended by the engine's Manufacturer have almost effectively negated their use in petrol engines today IMO
My dealings and comparisons of HDEOs started in the early 1960s. I was always motivated by the MB and CAT lubricant specifications at a time when very few existed. I've always found that Shell and Delvac products produced the cleanest engines as the end result
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN
So Kia says the following in their TSB:
"Recommendation:
-ACEA A5 or above/5W-30
Allowed Oil Grade
-API SL, SM or above
-ILSAC GHF-3, GF-4 or above
-ACEA A3, A5 or above
Allowed SAE Viscosity
5W-30/5W-40
* Notice
For best performance and maximum protection during all types of operation, select only those lubricants which:
1. Satisfy the requirements for API, ILSAC or ACEA classification.
2. Have proper SAE grade number for expected ambient temperature range.
2. Lubricants with neither SAE grade number, API, ILSAC and ACEA service classifications on the container should not be used."
And, see, this is another issue. The Asian makes cannot write an oil specification to save their souls. This is as silly as the Ford diesel mess. Reread this thing, and tell me exactly what you should use.
A5 or above? What is that supposed to be? I know what an A5/B5 lubricant is, but I'm not sure what is "above" that. The ACEA specs generally don't work that way. One can argue that A3/B4 is above A3/B3 or that A5/B5 is above A1/B1, but those are really the only options, and other examples are often mutually exclusive, so we're not talking "better" here.
SL, SM, or above. That makes a little more sense, because the specifications get newer all the time. The same applies to the ILSAC rating on the next line, but note that both of these add their own little confusion when we keep going.
A3, A5 or above? What does that mean? They already mentioned A5, which is actually A5/B5. And, I know what A3/B3 and A3/B4 are. So, which is above the other, again? And, I know what an E7, E9 lube is, and an E6, E7, E9 lube is. There is no such thing as an A3, A5 lubricant.
5w-30/5w-40? Okay, but watch the ambiguities forthcoming.
So, an A5/B5 5w-30 should be a reasonable choice, and those in North America will also be SN/GF-5. Note that an A5/B5 oil isn't that easy to find right now in North America.
The ambiguity arises when you start tossing viscosity options and other ACEA specs, particularly if a poster is trying to be really careful and reading this to avoid HDEOs. An A3/B4 lubricant will not be GF-3, GF-4, or GF-5. You also won't see A3 and A5 on the same label, and if you do, you should probably put the bottle back and look elsewhere. You won't see A5/B5 on a 5w-40, nor will you see GF-3, GF-4, or GF-5, either, and if you do, put it back. What we have in their TSB are a bunch of recommendations, some of which are mutually exclusive, and therefore obviously allow a very wide range of oils. Incidentally, I'm at a loss to think what the problem would be with a 0w-30 A3/B4 or a 0w-40 A3/B4, if a 5w-40 A3/B4 and a 5w-30 A3/B4 are okay. But, they really don't understand what they're specifying in the first place. And, the last line in their notice section is grammatically wrong (neither tends to go with "or/nor" and not with "and), not to mention logically a mess, since finding something that satisfies all their criteria is not possible.
So, if you want to prohibit a 5w-40 HDEO, then you shouldn't be allowing 5w-40 in SL or above, right?
This is what happens when marketing people and lawyers have simply heard a few buzzwords from engineers and are given free reign with a pen. If a writer cannot, from memory, explain the basic differences between A3/B4 and A5/B5, then he shouldn't even be writing oil recommendations for the OEM.
If Kia really wanted a 5w-30 ILSAC type oil with some modicum of ACEA compliance and high availability, they would have been well served to simply state to use a 5w-30 oil with the dexos1 logo. The ambiguity would disappear and they'd be deferring to someone who actually has some understanding of an oil specification.
So Kia says the following in their TSB:
"Recommendation:
-ACEA A5 or above/5W-30
Allowed Oil Grade
-API SL, SM or above
-ILSAC GHF-3, GF-4 or above
-ACEA A3, A5 or above
Allowed SAE Viscosity
5W-30/5W-40
* Notice
For best performance and maximum protection during all types of operation, select only those lubricants which:
1. Satisfy the requirements for API, ILSAC or ACEA classification.
2. Have proper SAE grade number for expected ambient temperature range.
2. Lubricants with neither SAE grade number, API, ILSAC and ACEA service classifications on the container should not be used."
And, see, this is another issue. The Asian makes cannot write an oil specification to save their souls. This is as silly as the Ford diesel mess. Reread this thing, and tell me exactly what you should use.
A5 or above? What is that supposed to be? I know what an A5/B5 lubricant is, but I'm not sure what is "above" that. The ACEA specs generally don't work that way. One can argue that A3/B4 is above A3/B3 or that A5/B5 is above A1/B1, but those are really the only options, and other examples are often mutually exclusive, so we're not talking "better" here.
SL, SM, or above. That makes a little more sense, because the specifications get newer all the time. The same applies to the ILSAC rating on the next line, but note that both of these add their own little confusion when we keep going.
A3, A5 or above? What does that mean? They already mentioned A5, which is actually A5/B5. And, I know what A3/B3 and A3/B4 are. So, which is above the other, again? And, I know what an E7, E9 lube is, and an E6, E7, E9 lube is. There is no such thing as an A3, A5 lubricant.
5w-30/5w-40? Okay, but watch the ambiguities forthcoming.
So, an A5/B5 5w-30 should be a reasonable choice, and those in North America will also be SN/GF-5. Note that an A5/B5 oil isn't that easy to find right now in North America.
The ambiguity arises when you start tossing viscosity options and other ACEA specs, particularly if a poster is trying to be really careful and reading this to avoid HDEOs. An A3/B4 lubricant will not be GF-3, GF-4, or GF-5. You also won't see A3 and A5 on the same label, and if you do, you should probably put the bottle back and look elsewhere. You won't see A5/B5 on a 5w-40, nor will you see GF-3, GF-4, or GF-5, either, and if you do, put it back. What we have in their TSB are a bunch of recommendations, some of which are mutually exclusive, and therefore obviously allow a very wide range of oils. Incidentally, I'm at a loss to think what the problem would be with a 0w-30 A3/B4 or a 0w-40 A3/B4, if a 5w-40 A3/B4 and a 5w-30 A3/B4 are okay. But, they really don't understand what they're specifying in the first place. And, the last line in their notice section is grammatically wrong (neither tends to go with "or/nor" and not with "and), not to mention logically a mess, since finding something that satisfies all their criteria is not possible.
So, if you want to prohibit a 5w-40 HDEO, then you shouldn't be allowing 5w-40 in SL or above, right?
This is what happens when marketing people and lawyers have simply heard a few buzzwords from engineers and are given free reign with a pen. If a writer cannot, from memory, explain the basic differences between A3/B4 and A5/B5, then he shouldn't even be writing oil recommendations for the OEM.
If Kia really wanted a 5w-30 ILSAC type oil with some modicum of ACEA compliance and high availability, they would have been well served to simply state to use a 5w-30 oil with the dexos1 logo. The ambiguity would disappear and they'd be deferring to someone who actually has some understanding of an oil specification.
Originally Posted By: Garak
WhizkidTN said:
Originally Posted By: ndfergy
What I infer in KIA's ACEA recommendation wording "or above" denotes new date specifications. Ambiguous, true, but now makes more sense.
Perhaps you do but I don't think anyone else does. I doubt there are 1% of KIA operators that even know how those specs operate.
What I infer in KIA's ACEA recommendation wording "or above" denotes new date specifications. Ambiguous, true, but now makes more sense.
Perhaps you do but I don't think anyone else does. I doubt there are 1% of KIA operators that even know how those specs operate.
They might mean it, but they don't say it, and clearly show a lack of understanding for how ACEA sequences are denoted. Showing "or above" or "or better" or "or newer" is meaningless when it comes to ACEA specs. If an oil is marked A5/B5 and the oil company is labelling things correctly, the spec is a recent one, and the ACEA publications state how far back you can go. A5/B5 doesn't change to A6/B6 or B5/C5 next year. A5/B5 is always current, until ACEA decides to discontinue it.
There are A5/B5 oils with the 2016 specification and there were A5/B5 oils with the 2012 specification. The labels are supposed to say A5/B5, no matter what, without any elaboration as to what year to which they refer.
There are A5/B5 oils with the 2016 specification and there were A5/B5 oils with the 2012 specification. The labels are supposed to say A5/B5, no matter what, without any elaboration as to what year to which they refer.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I doubt there are 1% of KIA operators that even know how those specs operate.
The same applies to Kia's bulletin writers.
I doubt there are 1% of KIA operators that even know how those specs operate.
The same applies to Kia's bulletin writers.
Originally Posted By: Garak
They might mean it, but they don't say it, and clearly show a lack of understanding for how ACEA sequences are denoted. Showing "or above" or "or better" or "or newer" is meaningless when it comes to ACEA specs. If an oil is marked A5/B5 and the oil company is labelling things correctly, the spec is a recent one, and the ACEA publications state how far back you can go. A5/B5 doesn't change to A6/B6 or B5/C5 next year. A5/B5 is always current, until ACEA decides to discontinue it.
There are A5/B5 oils with the 2016 specification and there were A5/B5 oils with the 2012 specification. The labels are supposed to say A5/B5, no matter what, without any elaboration as to what year to which they refer.
Agreed, to claim the ACEA spec it must be current within a certain time frame. However, NA sold oils sometimes play fast and loose with this spec. I'm not sure of the legalities of this outside of Europe.
They might mean it, but they don't say it, and clearly show a lack of understanding for how ACEA sequences are denoted. Showing "or above" or "or better" or "or newer" is meaningless when it comes to ACEA specs. If an oil is marked A5/B5 and the oil company is labelling things correctly, the spec is a recent one, and the ACEA publications state how far back you can go. A5/B5 doesn't change to A6/B6 or B5/C5 next year. A5/B5 is always current, until ACEA decides to discontinue it.
There are A5/B5 oils with the 2016 specification and there were A5/B5 oils with the 2012 specification. The labels are supposed to say A5/B5, no matter what, without any elaboration as to what year to which they refer.
Agreed, to claim the ACEA spec it must be current within a certain time frame. However, NA sold oils sometimes play fast and loose with this spec. I'm not sure of the legalities of this outside of Europe.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: ndfergy
What I infer in KIA's ACEA recommendation wording "or above" denotes new date specifications. Ambiguous, true, but now makes more sense.
Perhaps you do but I don't think anyone else does. I doubt there are 1% of KIA operators that even know how those specs operate.
Very true. I can see Joe six pack thinking, hmm, we've got A,B,C & E. E must be the best, I'll pick that one.
Originally Posted By: ndfergy
What I infer in KIA's ACEA recommendation wording "or above" denotes new date specifications. Ambiguous, true, but now makes more sense.
Perhaps you do but I don't think anyone else does. I doubt there are 1% of KIA operators that even know how those specs operate.
Very true. I can see Joe six pack thinking, hmm, we've got A,B,C & E. E must be the best, I'll pick that one.
- Status
Similar threads
