Nearly all synthetic API SM oils are ACEA rated. And some of the API SM dino/synthetic blends are ACEA rated. However, essentially none of the API SM dino oils are ACEA rated. Is it because they don’t pass the SAE J300 shear stability requirement?
Will the ACEA Dino Please Step Forward
- Thread starter Brian Barnhart
- Start date
- Status
I would think it's because they don't hold their grade all that well, I think Valvoline holds it for the ACEA rating if you look at it. Valvman mentioned it.
Pretty much all SM/GF-4 rated conventional oils meet ACEA A1. ACEA A3 and A5 are the tougher standards that conventional won't meet.
A1/B1
Oil intended for use in gasoline and car + light van diesel engines specifically designed to be capable of using low friction low viscosity oils with a High temperature / High shear rate viscosity of 2.6 to 3.5 mPas.s. These oils may be unsuitable for use in some engines. Consult owner manual or handbook if in doubt.
A3/B3
Stable, stay-in-grade oil intended for use in high performance gasoline and car + light van diesel engines and/or for extended drain intervals where specified by the engine manufacturer, and/or for year-round use of low viscosity oils, and/or for severe operating conditions as defined by the engine manufacturer.
A3/B4
Stable, stay-in-grade oil intended for use in high performance gasoline and direct injection diesel engines, but also suitable for applications described under A3/B3.
A5/B5
Stable, stay-in-grade oil intended for use at extended drain intervals in high performance gasoline and car + light van diesel engines designed to be capable of using low friction low viscosity oils with a High temperature / High shear rate viscosity of 2.9 to 3.5 mPa.s. These oils may be unsuitable for use in some engines. Consult owner manual or handbook if in doubt.
A1/B1
Oil intended for use in gasoline and car + light van diesel engines specifically designed to be capable of using low friction low viscosity oils with a High temperature / High shear rate viscosity of 2.6 to 3.5 mPas.s. These oils may be unsuitable for use in some engines. Consult owner manual or handbook if in doubt.
A3/B3
Stable, stay-in-grade oil intended for use in high performance gasoline and car + light van diesel engines and/or for extended drain intervals where specified by the engine manufacturer, and/or for year-round use of low viscosity oils, and/or for severe operating conditions as defined by the engine manufacturer.
A3/B4
Stable, stay-in-grade oil intended for use in high performance gasoline and direct injection diesel engines, but also suitable for applications described under A3/B3.
A5/B5
Stable, stay-in-grade oil intended for use at extended drain intervals in high performance gasoline and car + light van diesel engines designed to be capable of using low friction low viscosity oils with a High temperature / High shear rate viscosity of 2.9 to 3.5 mPa.s. These oils may be unsuitable for use in some engines. Consult owner manual or handbook if in doubt.
Actually, Valvoline states "Exceeds ACEA A1 protection" right on a bottle of 10w-30 All Climate SM/GF-4 I have.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Pretty much all SM/GF-4 rated conventional oils meet ACEA A1. ACEA A3 and A5 are the tougher standards that conventional won't meet.
If that were the case, I would expect them to say so in their product data sheets. All the manufactures seem to list the ACEA specs they meet on their synthetic data sheets. But any ACEA requirements met are conspicuously absent from their dino product data sheets.
Pretty much all SM/GF-4 rated conventional oils meet ACEA A1. ACEA A3 and A5 are the tougher standards that conventional won't meet.
If that were the case, I would expect them to say so in their product data sheets. All the manufactures seem to list the ACEA specs they meet on their synthetic data sheets. But any ACEA requirements met are conspicuously absent from their dino product data sheets.
Valvoline states it on the bottle of their last batches of All Climate, and the first batches of Premium Conventional. Not anymore though. Either the latest products don't meet it, or they no longer care to test it or publish it since The vast majority of consumers would not (in good conscious!) use a conventional oil where an ACEA A3 or A5 products is specified.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
...The vast majority of consumers would not (in good conscious!) use a conventional oil where an ACEA A3 or A5 products is specified.
But it appears that none of the dino oils from the major players meet even ACEA A1. That is what prompted my original question. I find it interesting that, in all probability, API SM dinos don’t even meet the lowest standard of European (ACEA A1) oils. Of course, this makes sense if the ACEA specs are tailored to longer OCIs (which would appear to be consistent with the current [longer] OCI recommendations in Europe).
It would seem that this bears out what is fairly common knowledge; you can extend OCIs with appropriate oils. It’s a shame that the US market is way behind the times in this area. In general, the manufacturers of US market autos and oils don’t acknowledge the extended drain capabilities of certain (typically synthetic) oils. Amsoil, and Mobil (with their EP line) are about the only exceptions.
...The vast majority of consumers would not (in good conscious!) use a conventional oil where an ACEA A3 or A5 products is specified.
But it appears that none of the dino oils from the major players meet even ACEA A1. That is what prompted my original question. I find it interesting that, in all probability, API SM dinos don’t even meet the lowest standard of European (ACEA A1) oils. Of course, this makes sense if the ACEA specs are tailored to longer OCIs (which would appear to be consistent with the current [longer] OCI recommendations in Europe).
It would seem that this bears out what is fairly common knowledge; you can extend OCIs with appropriate oils. It’s a shame that the US market is way behind the times in this area. In general, the manufacturers of US market autos and oils don’t acknowledge the extended drain capabilities of certain (typically synthetic) oils. Amsoil, and Mobil (with their EP line) are about the only exceptions.
I bet they would meet ACEA A1 though, but they don't pay to test it or publish it because it's a European spec mainly meant for Europe - where as there are vehicles sold in the US that are speced for ACEA A3 and A5.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
I bet they would meet ACEA A1 though, but they don't pay to test it or publish it because it's a European spec mainly meant for Europe - where as there are vehicles sold in the US that are speced for ACEA A3 and A5.
By that line of reasoning, there would be no reason to list ACEA A1 compliance for any oils. Yet nearly every oil manufacturer lists A1 compliance for all their synthetics (and some blends). Perhaps someone who knows why US market dinos don’t meet ACEA A1 requirements will chime in with an explanation.
I bet they would meet ACEA A1 though, but they don't pay to test it or publish it because it's a European spec mainly meant for Europe - where as there are vehicles sold in the US that are speced for ACEA A3 and A5.
By that line of reasoning, there would be no reason to list ACEA A1 compliance for any oils. Yet nearly every oil manufacturer lists A1 compliance for all their synthetics (and some blends). Perhaps someone who knows why US market dinos don’t meet ACEA A1 requirements will chime in with an explanation.
Quote:
But it appears that none of the dino oils from the major players meet even ACEA A1. That is what prompted my original question. I find it interesting that, in all probability, API SM dinos don’t even meet the lowest standard of European (ACEA A1) oils.
I think any SM oil could likely pass A1 quite easily. SM and A1 are probably reasonably close in overall tests. A3/A5 does all the same tests as A1 but with a little lower NOACK (13% vs 15%) and a little tighter stay in grade. The A1 oils (conventional) in Europe are almost all Group I/I+ based or semi-synthetic Group I/synthetic. Our conventional Group II/II+ oils here in NA (North America) are superior to even the A3 synthetic-blends in Europe (when viewed from a base oil perspective). The NA oil producers here generally don't bother with any ACEA certifications (cost + not needed for the vast majority of vehicles sold here). They design the oils around SM and GF-4 and the fuel economy requirements of those sequences. The fuel economy requirements of SM/GF-4 (sequence VIB, 1.5% after 96 hours) probably means …
1) The oils have to shear to make that spec. This means they're probably not blended shear stable on purpose.
2) These oils have to be blended near the lower end of the viscosity spread (i.e. a 5W-30 will be ~ 10.7 cSt maximum, rather than up around 12.0 cSt.) If our SM 5W-30's were blended up around 12.0 cSt, or used more shear stable VII's they could meet even A3 with the Group II/II+'s. At 12.0 cSt they could shear down 2.0 cSt and still easily be in grade (A3 specification = stay in grade), but they wouldn't pass the fuel economy requirements of SM/GF-4.
Quote:
It’s a shame that the US market is way behind the times in this area.
I don't think we're behind -- in fact I think overall we're ahead here in NA. We only have one specification here in NA (SM) so the A3/A5 specifications are a little better than that one spec. But Europe failed to make any sizeable investment in Group II plants (some very small production), so even the mid-tier synthetic-blends in Europe are still majority Group I/I+ based. I'd much rather have a Group II/III blend than a Group I/III blend.
A Group I/I+ based synthetic-blend can even meet A3 in the heavier grades like 15W-40 or 10W-40. The base oils in these synthetic-blends (GI/III or GI/PAO) would have less than half the thermal/oxidative stability of the Group II/II+ base oils we use here in our off-the-shelf conventional SM oils here. So, when viewed from a conventional base oil perspective, and considering European mid-tier synthetic blends still use Group I base oils -- we're way ahead. Some of these Group I synthetic-blends are probably loaded up pretty good with additives to pass the spec's. Our Group II based conventional oils here are blended for a low cost solution to SM. If one puts a premium add pac in them they can perform very well. Agip even advertises their Group II's as performing like synthetics …
Quote:
AGIP…
Agip uses Group II base oils for its non-synthetic. … … Agip’s non-synthetics offer performance equivalent to most synthetics on the market.
Group II's could be blended to pass A1, A3 or A5, and they could do it easier and better than Group I/I+'s.
Since these GI blends can make A3, but they aren’t really that good oils, auto manufacturers have to make their own specifications to make sure the oils can cope with their oil drains. VW, MB, BMW, etc., all make their own specifications over and above ACEA because many of the ACEA spec'd oils aren’t really up to snuff. Do you want an A3 rated Group I based 15W-40 synthetic-blend, or a CI-4+ conventional 15W-40 GII? I'd take the NA GII oil hands down. The end result is that in Europe a good portion of the oils specified these days for many manufactures are synthetic. The use of synthetics as a percentage of the oil market is also much higher compared to here in NA (I think probably approaching in the 30% range or more in some countries like Germany compared to 5-6% in NA).
They have a wide selection of very good synthetics in Europe, but they are expensive. If we were still using Group I oils in our conventionals, I probably wouldn't be using them -- I would likely switch to some Group III synthetic.
But it appears that none of the dino oils from the major players meet even ACEA A1. That is what prompted my original question. I find it interesting that, in all probability, API SM dinos don’t even meet the lowest standard of European (ACEA A1) oils.
I think any SM oil could likely pass A1 quite easily. SM and A1 are probably reasonably close in overall tests. A3/A5 does all the same tests as A1 but with a little lower NOACK (13% vs 15%) and a little tighter stay in grade. The A1 oils (conventional) in Europe are almost all Group I/I+ based or semi-synthetic Group I/synthetic. Our conventional Group II/II+ oils here in NA (North America) are superior to even the A3 synthetic-blends in Europe (when viewed from a base oil perspective). The NA oil producers here generally don't bother with any ACEA certifications (cost + not needed for the vast majority of vehicles sold here). They design the oils around SM and GF-4 and the fuel economy requirements of those sequences. The fuel economy requirements of SM/GF-4 (sequence VIB, 1.5% after 96 hours) probably means …
1) The oils have to shear to make that spec. This means they're probably not blended shear stable on purpose.
2) These oils have to be blended near the lower end of the viscosity spread (i.e. a 5W-30 will be ~ 10.7 cSt maximum, rather than up around 12.0 cSt.) If our SM 5W-30's were blended up around 12.0 cSt, or used more shear stable VII's they could meet even A3 with the Group II/II+'s. At 12.0 cSt they could shear down 2.0 cSt and still easily be in grade (A3 specification = stay in grade), but they wouldn't pass the fuel economy requirements of SM/GF-4.
Quote:
It’s a shame that the US market is way behind the times in this area.
I don't think we're behind -- in fact I think overall we're ahead here in NA. We only have one specification here in NA (SM) so the A3/A5 specifications are a little better than that one spec. But Europe failed to make any sizeable investment in Group II plants (some very small production), so even the mid-tier synthetic-blends in Europe are still majority Group I/I+ based. I'd much rather have a Group II/III blend than a Group I/III blend.
A Group I/I+ based synthetic-blend can even meet A3 in the heavier grades like 15W-40 or 10W-40. The base oils in these synthetic-blends (GI/III or GI/PAO) would have less than half the thermal/oxidative stability of the Group II/II+ base oils we use here in our off-the-shelf conventional SM oils here. So, when viewed from a conventional base oil perspective, and considering European mid-tier synthetic blends still use Group I base oils -- we're way ahead. Some of these Group I synthetic-blends are probably loaded up pretty good with additives to pass the spec's. Our Group II based conventional oils here are blended for a low cost solution to SM. If one puts a premium add pac in them they can perform very well. Agip even advertises their Group II's as performing like synthetics …
Quote:
AGIP…
Agip uses Group II base oils for its non-synthetic. … … Agip’s non-synthetics offer performance equivalent to most synthetics on the market.
Group II's could be blended to pass A1, A3 or A5, and they could do it easier and better than Group I/I+'s.
Since these GI blends can make A3, but they aren’t really that good oils, auto manufacturers have to make their own specifications to make sure the oils can cope with their oil drains. VW, MB, BMW, etc., all make their own specifications over and above ACEA because many of the ACEA spec'd oils aren’t really up to snuff. Do you want an A3 rated Group I based 15W-40 synthetic-blend, or a CI-4+ conventional 15W-40 GII? I'd take the NA GII oil hands down. The end result is that in Europe a good portion of the oils specified these days for many manufactures are synthetic. The use of synthetics as a percentage of the oil market is also much higher compared to here in NA (I think probably approaching in the 30% range or more in some countries like Germany compared to 5-6% in NA).
They have a wide selection of very good synthetics in Europe, but they are expensive. If we were still using Group I oils in our conventionals, I probably wouldn't be using them -- I would likely switch to some Group III synthetic.
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
I think any SM oil could likely pass A1 quite easily. SM and A1 are probably reasonably close in overall tests.
I doubt they are similar with regard to shear stability, and that's the reason for the OP. My understanding is that ACEA A1 requires shear stability to SAE J300, whereas the shear stability requirement for API is significantly less. In the case of 5W30 oils, the ACEA requirement of SAE J300 allows shear down to only 9.3 cSt, whereas the API requirement allows shear down to 8.5 cSt.
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
The NA oil producers here generally don't bother with any ACEA certifications (cost + not needed for the vast majority of vehicles sold here).
Sorry, but as I already stated, the NA oil producers “bother” to list/test to the requirement with all their synthetics and some of their blends. It makes little sense that they wouldn’t “bother” with their dinos. Unless of course their dino oils simply don’t meet A1.
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
I don't think we're behind -- in fact I think overall we're ahead here in NA. We only have one specification here in NA (SM) so the A3/A5 specifications are a little better than that one spec.
Only one NA spec? Many of the manufacturers who build and sell vehicles in NA rely on more than the SM spec alone.
As I already stated, I’m hoping someone who knows might answer my original question.
So far, I’ve heard only what certain individuals think, believe, and are betting on. Surely we can do better than that!
I think any SM oil could likely pass A1 quite easily. SM and A1 are probably reasonably close in overall tests.
I doubt they are similar with regard to shear stability, and that's the reason for the OP. My understanding is that ACEA A1 requires shear stability to SAE J300, whereas the shear stability requirement for API is significantly less. In the case of 5W30 oils, the ACEA requirement of SAE J300 allows shear down to only 9.3 cSt, whereas the API requirement allows shear down to 8.5 cSt.
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
The NA oil producers here generally don't bother with any ACEA certifications (cost + not needed for the vast majority of vehicles sold here).
Sorry, but as I already stated, the NA oil producers “bother” to list/test to the requirement with all their synthetics and some of their blends. It makes little sense that they wouldn’t “bother” with their dinos. Unless of course their dino oils simply don’t meet A1.
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
I don't think we're behind -- in fact I think overall we're ahead here in NA. We only have one specification here in NA (SM) so the A3/A5 specifications are a little better than that one spec.
Only one NA spec? Many of the manufacturers who build and sell vehicles in NA rely on more than the SM spec alone.
As I already stated, I’m hoping someone who knows might answer my original question.
So far, I’ve heard only what certain individuals think, believe, and are betting on. Surely we can do better than that!
IMO the "think, believe, and are betting on. Surely we can do better than that" comment is [censored].
Call the companies and find out yourself and please let us know what is up if you don't like what you read regarding this subject. What answer from a poster would satisfy you? You want someone to say that our standard oil is [censored] and Europe oil is superior?
The "standard" oil sold in the US does a fantastic job. It does what the auto manufacturers want the oil to do....including many foreign cars makers. When you add in how inexpensive this product actually is and what it does......I just don't see where you are coming from.
You have options. Don't like the "standard oil"? Use one of the blends. They have the A1 rating you might be looking for. Not good enough? Then move up to one of the many synthetic oils, mainstream and boutuque. Still not satisfied? Euro oils can be had here.
You pay according to what you want to use.
Your choice.
What a country.
Call the companies and find out yourself and please let us know what is up if you don't like what you read regarding this subject. What answer from a poster would satisfy you? You want someone to say that our standard oil is [censored] and Europe oil is superior?
The "standard" oil sold in the US does a fantastic job. It does what the auto manufacturers want the oil to do....including many foreign cars makers. When you add in how inexpensive this product actually is and what it does......I just don't see where you are coming from.
You have options. Don't like the "standard oil"? Use one of the blends. They have the A1 rating you might be looking for. Not good enough? Then move up to one of the many synthetic oils, mainstream and boutuque. Still not satisfied? Euro oils can be had here.
You pay according to what you want to use.
Your choice.
What a country.
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
IMO the "think, believe, and are betting on. Surely we can do better than that" comment is [censored].
Sorry, I forgot this was just a forum. Some of us still have a desire for this site to be driven by a quest for knowledge as opposed to opinion.
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
The "standard" oil sold in the US does a fantastic job. It does what the auto manufacturers want the oil to do....including many foreign cars makers. When you add in how inexpensive this product actually is and what it does......I just don't see where you are coming from.
In the OP I asked what I thought was a simple question. I’ve posted what I thought is going on with ACEA A1 relative to NA dinos, but I’m interested in fact instead of what I think or have been led to believe. My OP is yet to be answered. I think I’ve made it pretty obvious where I’m coming from.
I think it’s too soon to say our “standard” oils do a fantastic job. I’ve seen the result of SL oils when changed at intervals beyond 3-4K miles (but according to an OLM) in my van, and it’s far from fantastic. Hopefully the SMs will be much better. Time will tell.
IMO the "think, believe, and are betting on. Surely we can do better than that" comment is [censored].
Sorry, I forgot this was just a forum. Some of us still have a desire for this site to be driven by a quest for knowledge as opposed to opinion.
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
The "standard" oil sold in the US does a fantastic job. It does what the auto manufacturers want the oil to do....including many foreign cars makers. When you add in how inexpensive this product actually is and what it does......I just don't see where you are coming from.
In the OP I asked what I thought was a simple question. I’ve posted what I thought is going on with ACEA A1 relative to NA dinos, but I’m interested in fact instead of what I think or have been led to believe. My OP is yet to be answered. I think I’ve made it pretty obvious where I’m coming from.
I think it’s too soon to say our “standard” oils do a fantastic job. I’ve seen the result of SL oils when changed at intervals beyond 3-4K miles (but according to an OLM) in my van, and it’s far from fantastic. Hopefully the SMs will be much better. Time will tell.
As I stated, if you do not get the answers from here do the research yourself. Then you can post as the expert. To sit on your imaginary high horse and take shots at people trying to answer your question is low rent. Shame on you.
To post that oil that we have been using and abusing for decades hasn't been doing the job is absurd. Just because it may or may not meet a certain spec NOT specified by the makers of the automobiles that the oil is used in doesn't mean the oil doesn't do it's intended job. To state or imply otherwise is just trolling.
To post that oil that we have been using and abusing for decades hasn't been doing the job is absurd. Just because it may or may not meet a certain spec NOT specified by the makers of the automobiles that the oil is used in doesn't mean the oil doesn't do it's intended job. To state or imply otherwise is just trolling.
Quote:
In the case of 5W30 oils, the ACEA requirement of SAE J300 allows shear down to only 9.3 cSt, whereas the API requirement allows shear down to 8.5 cSt.
Looking at the sheets for ACEA …
ACEA A1 is 8.6 cSt for 5W-30's (ASTM D6278 after 30 cycles)
API SM: Ten-hour stripped kinematic viscosity (oil shall remain in original viscosity grade) using (ASTM D 6709 10 hour)
So, they're different tests and not comparable. How the SM oils would do on the ACEA test and vice versa -- I don't know.
Quote:
I’ve seen the result of SL oils when changed at intervals beyond 3-4K miles (but according to an OLM) in my van, and it’s far from fantastic.
There still was a fair amount of Group I based 10W-30 (10W40 + heavier grades) floating around in the SL spec. 5W-30 required majority Group II+ (was a technical requirement for SL), but a 10W-30 could be blended with majority Group I/I+.
As additional Group II capacity was built in the late 1990's and early 2000's, there was excess Group I capacity. Rather than shut some of the GI plants down, I'm surmising that some oil producers would probably mix up a big batch of GI/I+ based 10W-30 and discount it to the fast lube chains just to get rid of it and keep the plant running. If you used a SL 5W-30 you got GII+, if one used 10W-30 it possibility could have been a GI based oil depending on whom it was bought from. The safe thing then was to use the 5W-30's to avoid the GI's or buy from a major producer of GII oils that had switched over completely to GII. For example, the Motiva Group II pant at Port Arthur (Shell + Saudi refining) is the largest GII plant the world. Shell is going to be inclined to use that huge GII capacity in all their oils.
I think GI should be out of the system for SM PCMO's. The future was Group II and almost all the research and new additives were being directed toward these base oils for PCMO's, so even the few GI players during SL we're having their hand forced to GII. Go GII or fall behind.
In the case of 5W30 oils, the ACEA requirement of SAE J300 allows shear down to only 9.3 cSt, whereas the API requirement allows shear down to 8.5 cSt.
Looking at the sheets for ACEA …
ACEA A1 is 8.6 cSt for 5W-30's (ASTM D6278 after 30 cycles)
API SM: Ten-hour stripped kinematic viscosity (oil shall remain in original viscosity grade) using (ASTM D 6709 10 hour)
So, they're different tests and not comparable. How the SM oils would do on the ACEA test and vice versa -- I don't know.
Quote:
I’ve seen the result of SL oils when changed at intervals beyond 3-4K miles (but according to an OLM) in my van, and it’s far from fantastic.
There still was a fair amount of Group I based 10W-30 (10W40 + heavier grades) floating around in the SL spec. 5W-30 required majority Group II+ (was a technical requirement for SL), but a 10W-30 could be blended with majority Group I/I+.
As additional Group II capacity was built in the late 1990's and early 2000's, there was excess Group I capacity. Rather than shut some of the GI plants down, I'm surmising that some oil producers would probably mix up a big batch of GI/I+ based 10W-30 and discount it to the fast lube chains just to get rid of it and keep the plant running. If you used a SL 5W-30 you got GII+, if one used 10W-30 it possibility could have been a GI based oil depending on whom it was bought from. The safe thing then was to use the 5W-30's to avoid the GI's or buy from a major producer of GII oils that had switched over completely to GII. For example, the Motiva Group II pant at Port Arthur (Shell + Saudi refining) is the largest GII plant the world. Shell is going to be inclined to use that huge GII capacity in all their oils.
I think GI should be out of the system for SM PCMO's. The future was Group II and almost all the research and new additives were being directed toward these base oils for PCMO's, so even the few GI players during SL we're having their hand forced to GII. Go GII or fall behind.
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
Looking at the sheets for ACEA …
ACEA A1 is 8.6 cSt for 5W-30's (ASTM D6278 after 30 cycles)
API SM: Ten-hour stripped kinematic viscosity (oil shall remain in original viscosity grade) using (ASTM D 6709 10 hour)
So, they're different tests and not comparable. How the SM oils would do on the ACEA test and vice versa -- I don't know.
Drivebelt, thank you very much for this information. I was obviously wrong in my understanding of the two requirements. As you clearly show, ACEA A1 and API SM obviously cannot be directly compared and one can’t assume if an oil meets A1 it will meet SM or vice versa.
I recently looked at the viscosity results in the UOAs of several 5W30 dinos on this site. Interestingly, of the 10 UOAs, only 2 had viscosities that still met the API (SAE J300) requirement of 9.3 cSt. And the 2 oils that did were both in use for less than 2200 miles. In addition, 3 of the oils had a viscosity of less than 8.6 cSt. All 10 oils were in use for less than 4600 miles.
Though hardly scientific, the above UOA results make one wonder how useful the API viscosity test requirement (ASTM D 6709 - stay in grade [9.3 cSt] for 10 hours) is at evaluating an oil’s shear stability. The data suggests that it doesn’t represent the viscosity shearing that occurs in real vehicles under normal driving conditions. Of course it’s entirely possible that the test isn’t intended to represent actual real world conditions.
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
There still was a fair amount of Group I based 10W-30 (10W40 + heavier grades) floating around in the SL spec. 5W-30 required majority Group II+ (was a technical requirement for SL), but a 10W-30 could be blended with majority Group I/I+.
As additional Group II capacity was built in the late 1990's and early 2000's, there was excess Group I capacity. Rather than shut some of the GI plants down, I'm surmising that some oil producers would probably mix up a big batch of GI/I+ based 10W-30 and discount it to the fast lube chains just to get rid of it and keep the plant running. If you used a SL 5W-30 you got GII+, if one used 10W-30 it possibility could have been a GI based oil depending on whom it was bought from. The safe thing then was to use the 5W-30's to avoid the GI's or buy from a major producer of GII oils that had switched over completely to GII. For example, the Motiva Group II pant at Port Arthur (Shell + Saudi refining) is the largest GII plant the world. Shell is going to be inclined to use that huge GII capacity in all their oils.
I think GI should be out of the system for SM PCMO's. The future was Group II and almost all the research and new additives were being directed toward these base oils for PCMO's, so even the few GI players during SL we're having their hand forced to GII. Go GII or fall behind.
My van saw both 5W30 and 10W30 SL (probably more 10W30), so it could have seen some GI. You seem to be implying that GI SL oils would have delivered a significantly lower level of performance than the higher group levels. If that is true, it points out a major pitfall in the API (SL at least) specification. After all, there was nothing in the SL spec suggesting that a 10W30 SL could have offered a significantly lower level of performance than a 5W30 SL. Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t had any major issues with SL use in my van. I just wouldn’t call SL’s performance (with 5-6K mile OCIs) “fantastic” based on the engine’s internal cleanliness.
It could be argued that the performance of API SL in my van was completely satisfactory. And if it’s API’s intent to provide guidelines to ensure oils meet only minimum performance requirements, I’d say they’ve been succcessful. But if one is looking for something more than merely adequate performance, it means he/she must look elsewhere (beyond API’s essentially single one-for-all rating system) for guidance. Perhaps that’s one reason why vehicle manufacturers have created their own requirements. At any rate, API’s single-mindedness with regard to PCMO creates a need for BITOG!
Looking at the sheets for ACEA …
ACEA A1 is 8.6 cSt for 5W-30's (ASTM D6278 after 30 cycles)
API SM: Ten-hour stripped kinematic viscosity (oil shall remain in original viscosity grade) using (ASTM D 6709 10 hour)
So, they're different tests and not comparable. How the SM oils would do on the ACEA test and vice versa -- I don't know.
Drivebelt, thank you very much for this information. I was obviously wrong in my understanding of the two requirements. As you clearly show, ACEA A1 and API SM obviously cannot be directly compared and one can’t assume if an oil meets A1 it will meet SM or vice versa.
I recently looked at the viscosity results in the UOAs of several 5W30 dinos on this site. Interestingly, of the 10 UOAs, only 2 had viscosities that still met the API (SAE J300) requirement of 9.3 cSt. And the 2 oils that did were both in use for less than 2200 miles. In addition, 3 of the oils had a viscosity of less than 8.6 cSt. All 10 oils were in use for less than 4600 miles.
Though hardly scientific, the above UOA results make one wonder how useful the API viscosity test requirement (ASTM D 6709 - stay in grade [9.3 cSt] for 10 hours) is at evaluating an oil’s shear stability. The data suggests that it doesn’t represent the viscosity shearing that occurs in real vehicles under normal driving conditions. Of course it’s entirely possible that the test isn’t intended to represent actual real world conditions.
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
There still was a fair amount of Group I based 10W-30 (10W40 + heavier grades) floating around in the SL spec. 5W-30 required majority Group II+ (was a technical requirement for SL), but a 10W-30 could be blended with majority Group I/I+.
As additional Group II capacity was built in the late 1990's and early 2000's, there was excess Group I capacity. Rather than shut some of the GI plants down, I'm surmising that some oil producers would probably mix up a big batch of GI/I+ based 10W-30 and discount it to the fast lube chains just to get rid of it and keep the plant running. If you used a SL 5W-30 you got GII+, if one used 10W-30 it possibility could have been a GI based oil depending on whom it was bought from. The safe thing then was to use the 5W-30's to avoid the GI's or buy from a major producer of GII oils that had switched over completely to GII. For example, the Motiva Group II pant at Port Arthur (Shell + Saudi refining) is the largest GII plant the world. Shell is going to be inclined to use that huge GII capacity in all their oils.
I think GI should be out of the system for SM PCMO's. The future was Group II and almost all the research and new additives were being directed toward these base oils for PCMO's, so even the few GI players during SL we're having their hand forced to GII. Go GII or fall behind.
My van saw both 5W30 and 10W30 SL (probably more 10W30), so it could have seen some GI. You seem to be implying that GI SL oils would have delivered a significantly lower level of performance than the higher group levels. If that is true, it points out a major pitfall in the API (SL at least) specification. After all, there was nothing in the SL spec suggesting that a 10W30 SL could have offered a significantly lower level of performance than a 5W30 SL. Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t had any major issues with SL use in my van. I just wouldn’t call SL’s performance (with 5-6K mile OCIs) “fantastic” based on the engine’s internal cleanliness.
It could be argued that the performance of API SL in my van was completely satisfactory. And if it’s API’s intent to provide guidelines to ensure oils meet only minimum performance requirements, I’d say they’ve been succcessful. But if one is looking for something more than merely adequate performance, it means he/she must look elsewhere (beyond API’s essentially single one-for-all rating system) for guidance. Perhaps that’s one reason why vehicle manufacturers have created their own requirements. At any rate, API’s single-mindedness with regard to PCMO creates a need for BITOG!
Valvoline will stand up. Emailed tech and they indicated Valvoline still passes ACEA A1 but they no longer publish it. Straight from my garage - the published specs on a bottle of SM/GF-4 All Climate.
Last edited:
Quote:
You seem to be implying that GI SL oils would have delivered a significantly lower level of performance than the higher group levels. If that is true, it points out a major pitfall in the API (SL at least) specification.
It's true, the Group II based oils would have offered a better overall level of performance than the GI (much higher thermal/oxidative stability). The tests for API (SL) are a baseline. I suspect a Group I/I+ (some GI/II blend) based 10W-30 would just limp across the finish line whereas a Group II based 10W-30 would still be going strong - at least from a thermal/oxidative POV. Quaker State Q-TorquePower synthetic 10W-30 is SM (no other significant spec's listed), but will outperform conventional SM 10W-30 oils even though they both pass the baseline spec.
The other noteworthy thing is that the fuel economy tests for A1/A5 and SM/GF-4 are different. A1/A5 have to beat a 15W-40 by 2.5%, A3 has no fuel economy requirement.
SM/GF-4 for 5W-30 viscosity grades:1.8% FEI 1 (min) after 16 hours aging, 1.5% FEI 2 (min) after 96 hours aging. They are tested against a PAO based 5W-30.
I think the GF-4 fuel economy test (on paper) looks tougher to beat. A fuel economy requirement after 96 hours probably means these oils have to shear down to meet it (counteract any possible oxidative thickening). When I read that one of the goals for the next generation of oils (SN/GF-5) was improved fuel economy, I get worried. I think the fuel economy requirement is already hurting the shear stability of oils, and if they up the requirement any further they will make things worse. We will end up 30 weights just above the 20 range (in the mid 9.0's) that will shear well into 20 weight category. It would essentially destroy the 30-weight category. I think even the current the fuel economy requirements should be rolled back a little (I would prefer more shear stable oils.). If one wants a more fuel efficient oil -- use 20 weights, don't turn our 30 weights into 20 weights.
On the upside, even though many of 30 weights can shear, the 20 weight oils are performing very well. So, even if one's 5W-30 shears down a little, it will still offer very good protection. And from a thermal/oxidative POV, these Group II's oils are very good.
You seem to be implying that GI SL oils would have delivered a significantly lower level of performance than the higher group levels. If that is true, it points out a major pitfall in the API (SL at least) specification.
It's true, the Group II based oils would have offered a better overall level of performance than the GI (much higher thermal/oxidative stability). The tests for API (SL) are a baseline. I suspect a Group I/I+ (some GI/II blend) based 10W-30 would just limp across the finish line whereas a Group II based 10W-30 would still be going strong - at least from a thermal/oxidative POV. Quaker State Q-TorquePower synthetic 10W-30 is SM (no other significant spec's listed), but will outperform conventional SM 10W-30 oils even though they both pass the baseline spec.
The other noteworthy thing is that the fuel economy tests for A1/A5 and SM/GF-4 are different. A1/A5 have to beat a 15W-40 by 2.5%, A3 has no fuel economy requirement.
SM/GF-4 for 5W-30 viscosity grades:1.8% FEI 1 (min) after 16 hours aging, 1.5% FEI 2 (min) after 96 hours aging. They are tested against a PAO based 5W-30.
I think the GF-4 fuel economy test (on paper) looks tougher to beat. A fuel economy requirement after 96 hours probably means these oils have to shear down to meet it (counteract any possible oxidative thickening). When I read that one of the goals for the next generation of oils (SN/GF-5) was improved fuel economy, I get worried. I think the fuel economy requirement is already hurting the shear stability of oils, and if they up the requirement any further they will make things worse. We will end up 30 weights just above the 20 range (in the mid 9.0's) that will shear well into 20 weight category. It would essentially destroy the 30-weight category. I think even the current the fuel economy requirements should be rolled back a little (I would prefer more shear stable oils.). If one wants a more fuel efficient oil -- use 20 weights, don't turn our 30 weights into 20 weights.
On the upside, even though many of 30 weights can shear, the 20 weight oils are performing very well. So, even if one's 5W-30 shears down a little, it will still offer very good protection. And from a thermal/oxidative POV, these Group II's oils are very good.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
