Holy Grail Oil Spec Comparison Tool ACEA ISLAC Etc

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: uart
So the current oil I'm running (Valvoline Durablend bought about 6 months ago) says ACEA A1 on the bottle. It could be either the 07 or the 08 spec.

Actually, those late of specs are AX/BX format. It could be the 2002 A1 only category.

 

[shpankey]

Originally Posted By: Fallguy
As much as I hate to do it I am about ready to through in the towel and go with Amsoil (hate the multi level marketing).

Would also consider German Syntec but can not find out the actual MRV (low temp actual number) Website just list a default 60,000

Regards
What's the spec list for GC?

 

[uart]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: uart
So the current oil I'm running (Valvoline Durablend bought about 6 months ago) says ACEA A1 on the bottle. It could be either the 07 or the 08 spec.

Actually, those late of specs are AX/BX format. It could be the 2002 A1 only category.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying there river_rat. Are you saying the if you buy an oil that lists an ACEA spec and it doesn't explicitly state the year that it could be any year back to 02?

This seems to be in conflict with what Brian Barnhart said above.

 

[Brian Barnhart]

According to the ACEA timeline, 2002 spec oils could be marketed until 11/2006, and 2004 spec oils until 12/2009. So any 2002 oils would have been produced at least 4 years ago. There is probably still a good bit of -04 stuff out there. The 2007 spec oils can be marketed through 12/2010, so we could see those oils for some time yet. Also keep in mind that the specs for “A” and “B” oils changed little, if any, between the 2004 and 2007 requirements.

Prior to the 2004 spec, “A” and “B” oils were specified separately, i.e. “A1” or “B1”. Beginning with the 2004 specs, “A” and “B” were combined and specified as “A1/B1”, for example.

According to Lubrizol’s Relative Performance Tool, the 2008 ACEA “Ax/Bx” oils represent quite an improvement in some areas over the 2004/2007 “AxBx” oils. However, I’ve yet to see a bottle or spec sheet for an ACEA oil that is “-08”, and suspect that most, if not all, ACEA oils in the US are still -04 or -07.

Since the 2007 spec cutoff date (12/2010) is upon us, I would expect any oil data sheet dated after 12/2010, or any oil produced after 12/2010, claiming ACEA compliance would need to be a -08 oil (assuming the oil manufacturer complies with ACEA marketing requirements).

It seems much of the confusion could be eliminated if ACEA compliance required the spec revision date be included when ACEA specs are referenced, i.e. A1/B1-07. But I can find no such requirement in the ACEA specs, and the revision/date is often left off (intentionally?) the data sheet or oil bottle.

Finally, I want to make it clear that I'm not any kind of authority on ACEA specs. What I have posted is simply my understanding of the ACEA requirements based on a review of the ACEA's published documents.

 

[uart]

Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart

Prior to the 2004 spec, “A” and “B” oils were specified separately, i.e. “A1” or “B1”. Beginning with the 2004 specs, “A” and “B” were combined and specified as “A1/B1”, for example.

Arrr now I get what River_rat was saying. The durablend just lists "A1" alone which makes him suspicious that it might actually be an old 02 spec.

Quote:
It seems much of the confusion could be eliminated if ACEA compliance required the spec revision date be included when ACEA specs are referenced.
Agreed 100%

Up until yesterday I never even knew about this year specific ACEA thing. Imagine how silly it would be if all the API service designations were say SF and you had to go, "oh that's an SF from 02 so it is actually an SF, oh this one is an SF from 04 so it's really an SG, oh and this SF is from 08 so it's really an SL etc. That would just be so crazy that I think most here would be jumping up and down and frothing at the mouth if that was how it was implemented. But apparently that is exactly how ACEA is implemented. Amazing!

 

[boxcartommie22]

and we are being sold sn gf-5 oils are better...lol we all are being taken...american specs are in the pockets of greenies..

 

[boxcartommie22]

redline 5w20 is acea a5b5..5w30 is dam 229.51

 

[Fallguy]

ACEA Has some great specs in later years but there systems is pain and really lets oil mfgs game the system even if they did not intend it that way.

Anyone know of a less Year dependent year specific Euro grading system. VW specs look less dependent but still have some year spreads.

Porsche maybe the way to go. I WANT A EXCELLENT SPEC THE MFGS CAN NOT FUDGE AROUND AND PLAY GAMES. Do not care about API or GF-5 as those are just to squeeze an extra 1mpg and make your cat run to 800,000 miles

Anyone new post click link below and start looking at the various specs. A picture is worth a thousand words, a graphs should be worth and least 500. Way easy to see what is being reviewed in this manner.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/lubrizol/EOACEA2009/RPTOOL2010Dep/rp/pc/index.html

 

[boxcartommie22]

i agree 100% fallguy

 

[BigJohn]

In regard to the VW507 spec looking so good in the graph, but having a low TBN.....

Well, that oil is designed for the newer Diesel engines where ultra-low sulphur fuel is used.....and a high TBN isn't required.

At least that is what I have read and others have told me.

I would not use a 507 oil in a car requiring a 502.....like my gas, 2.0 Turbo VW. GC is what she is getting.

As others have stated....stick with the recommendations. They are there for a reason.

 

[BobFout]

504.00 / 507.00 oils. They are not diesel-only oils.

 

[AEHaas]

The A1/B1 specification is seen often in thinner oils. Yet they basically overlap the A3/B3-B4 specification. In a way it may be better because the A1/B1 spec also includes fuel economy.

This shows that the wear specification, for example, is the same for the two classes even though the A1/B1 oils are thinner. Thinner oils protect just as good (? better in some ways) than the thicker A3/B3-4 oil.

The same is true for API ratings. The ratings go across different grades. Thinner oils cannot show more wear in the same tests as the thicker oils tested.

aehaas

 

[Brian Barnhart]

The "3" series oils (i.e. A3/B3) are intended for use in engines that are not designed to run on low HTHS oils. The ACEA states that the "1" and "5" series (low HTHS) oils may be unsuitable for use in some engines.

 

[Audi Junkie]

I'm personally still waiting for the bad UOA in a Euro engine from low HT/HS oil. I have four or five great ones I can post w/o searching.

I use A5 oil in my 340ft-lb 4 cylinder turbo and we'll see my UOA in spring.


fwiw, Dexos low HT/HS oils offer "turbocharger protection" as part of their product target.

Low HT/HS in Euro cars is not the problem some think it is. Cars like our Astra spec Euro 5w-40 with the same engine over there, here they recommend and get API 5w-30 oil.Same with HT-06, a low HT/HS oil in a turbo hp application.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
ACEA are quite specific about the lower HTHS ranges and their use - specific wording encompasses this:

"These oils are unsuitable for use in
some engines. Consult owner manual or handbook if in doubt."

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: hooligan24
I got bored and entered all the approvals listed for the Mobil 1 0w40.

That's the great thing about M1 0w40, it can be found anywhere and is one of the best oils on the market.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
ACEA are quite specific about the lower HTHS ranges and their use - specific wording encompasses this:

"These oils are unsuitable for use in
some engines. Consult owner manual or handbook if in doubt."



"Some engines" is "quite specific" to you?

 

[supercity]

Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart


According to Lubrizol’s Relative Performance Tool, the 2008 ACEA “Ax/Bx” oils represent quite an improvement in some areas over the 2004/2007 “AxBx” oils. However, I’ve yet to see a bottle or spec sheet for an ACEA oil that is “-08”, and suspect that most, if not all, ACEA oils in the US are still -04 or -07.

Since the 2007 spec cutoff date (12/2010) is upon us, I would expect any oil data sheet dated after 12/2010, or any oil produced after 12/2010, claiming ACEA compliance would need to be a -08 oil (assuming the oil manufacturer complies with ACEA marketing requirements).

It seems much of the confusion could be eliminated if ACEA compliance required the spec revision date be included when ACEA specs are referenced, i.e. A1/B1-07. But I can find no such requirement in the ACEA specs, and the revision/date is often left off (intentionally?) the data sheet or oil bottle.
.


If the bottle has an ACEA approval then it must be the latest spec. That's why there is no need for the -08 etc. Manufacturers should not claim an older ACEA spec on the bottle, e.g. ACEA A3-02 if there is one that supersedes it.

http://www.penriteoil.com.au/tech_pdfs/176 API SN ACEA 08 VS API SM ACEA 04.pdf

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
"Some engines" is "quite specific" to you?


Consult your owners manual is VERY specific, unlike the "thin is in" advice often offered here.

 

[Brian Barnhart]

Originally Posted By: supercity
If the bottle has an ACEA approval then it must be the latest spec. That's why there is no need for the -08 etc. Manufacturers should not claim an older ACEA spec on the bottle, e.g. ACEA A3-02 if there is one that supersedes it.


True, assuming the manufacturer is following ACEA requirements. However, you need to know when the oil was produced (marketed) to determine which ACEA revision would apply to any given bottle. Determining when a bottle of oil was produced can be difficult in some instances, unless the bottle is clearly dated (typically not), or you can read the manufacturer date code.