SM SL Ratings What do these mean???

[automated1]

Im still trying to figure out alot of oil terms here and the ratings on back of oil containers show an energy conserving logo and show for example SJ , SL , SM What do these mean and as the letter to the right goes up is that a better oil???

Any help would be appriciated.

Thx Alot,
Jason

 

[yannis]

Some people are beyond any imagination.

 

[Drew99GT]

Basically it is the rating that the API gives to motor oils; it is a quality standard that indeed does goes up as the right letter goes up. Ie. you don't want to put SH oil in a brand new vehicle, but you can put SM/SL in an older vehicle because the standards are backward compatible.

 

[Drew99GT]

quote:

---

Originally posted by yannis:
Some people are beyond any imagination.

---

Nice attitude. Way to get those newbies coming back.

 

[automated1]

Thx Drew thats what i thought but i wasnt sure. So is the quaility the base stock oil/additive package exc... or just the base stock oil?

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

I think each incarnation has more energy conserving qualities.

 

[haley10]

Auto, the quality of the base stock goes up, but the additive package reduces the level of zddp to accomodate the belief that it may shorten the life of catalytic converters. The oils do get better for late model cars, but the jury is still out on whether the newer oils may be as good in older engines with flat tappet cams etc.

Zddp has consistently been reduced and engine designs advance. Some older engines and lawn and garden engines "might" do better with an older rating that allows for more ZDDP. The newer and more expensive additive packages are meant to replace it functionally, but....I can't say how backward compatible they went.

Oil for Diesel (HDEO) and lawn equipment are not rated SM because they are inferior. It's the limitation on ZDDP for cars with emission controls.

 

[Drew99GT]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
I think each incarnation has more energy conserving qualities.

---

Bingo; I think that's the real stickler for new API standards.

Automated, the latest API standards are geared more to fuel economy and reduced emmissions. The stalwart anti-wear additives zinc and phosphurous are kind of going by the wayside as they're know to be harmful to cat convertors. As a result, oil makers are having to use better, more expensive additives like antimony, coupled with much higher quality, more refined base stocks. So yes, on average, the base ois and the additive packages are getting better.

 

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by automated1:
Thx Drew thats what i thought but i wasnt sure. So is the quaility the base stock oil/additive package exc... or just the base stock oil?

---

It's the finished product. Doesn't matter how one arrives at it.

http://api-ep.api.org/quality/index...=display_body&er=1&bitmask=002001005000000000

Basically it's a matter of running several tests at approved facilities, submitting the test data to the API, and paying a small licensing fee.
I've been told the tests cost way more than the licensing fees.

Supposedly some additive companies have fully-tested formulas (Lubrizol calls theirs' "performance packages"), which can be mixed with a certain grade of base oil. The oil blender can then submit the additive maker's test data for API licensing approval. Makes a lot of sense for a relatively low-volume product. Then there are relabelled "house brands" that are nothing more than a formula that's already been tested.