Originally Posted By: StevieC
Yes and any oil company can say they meet that specification based on their testing against whatever the parameters are in the MS-12633 spec.
No, there are parameters that define the required testing for a "meets" approval, which is why AMSOIL recommends for API SN for example, not "meets" it, whilst their lower tier products are actually API SN approved. The Ford approvals are the same way, falling under the "meets" category, but there is an actual testing protocol in place for them.
I think the difference between "meets requirements" and "builder approvals" is where the testing is done. The first can be done, via an approved protocol, by the blender themselves, whilst the latter is done by the manufacturer. They both have formal processes to them and both are official titles, it is where the testing is done that sets them apart.
You see all three languages on Mobil 1 5w-30 for example:
Meets, builder approvals and "Recommended for".
You'll note the distinct lack of Chrysler approvals under the "meets" heading. When asked about it Mobil's response was that it was a "multi year test" and that they had "chosen not to pursue it at this time". Most of us on here at the time assumed it was simply due to the contract being given to SOPUS as part of the FIAT acquisition, as no Mobil 1 product since has carried a Chrysler approval.