Meeting versus exceeding specs

[mjoekingz28]

I have some sun power in both quarts and 5 qt jugs. On the jug it says it meets or exceeds and on the quarts it says it exceeds the requirements.

Could this bea case of bottling differently for WM stores vs part houses?


They are both SN, but I got the jugs this spring at a wm and got the qt bottles at a bogo event, the bottles look a lot older.

I know this has been discussed before, but, why make it almost exact? Is it a tell of some sort?

 

[d00df00d]

"Meets" = They think it'll pass the test. Or they actually tested it, and it passes. Could be with flying colors, or could be by the skin of its teeth.

"Meets or exceeds" = The oil just barely passes some tests, and passes others with flying colors. This could be applied to a list of specs, or to a single spec that involves multiple tests.

None of that verbiage is as good as actually having the approval(s), unless you feel you can REALLY trust the formulator to know what it's doing AND be thorough with its testing AND tell you the truth.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
I have some sun power in both quarts and 5 qt jugs. On the jug it says it meets or exceeds and on the quarts it says it exceeds the requirements.

Which specs exactly are you referring to?

 

[OneEyeJack]

Only pay attention to actual specs. Ignore "meets" or "exceeds", it means nothing.

Also don't pay any attention to "Pennzoil causes milky sludge" or "Mobil 1 causes leaks".

Be careful of "the best" if "the best" is not carefully defined.

Also ignore the FALEX Four-Ball Extreme Pressure Test unless you never get your engine oil above room temperature and your engine's oil system is splash only and does not have an oil pump.

And finally, if your oil is not crystal clear it does not automatically indicate that it must be changed.

 

[dlundblad]

Meeting spec x is all it has to do. The word exceeding is a marketing term.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Why I don't really concern myself with whether an oil is "approved" or not, but meets and exceeds the specs is from a lot of experience.

Let's take one... Detroit Diesel 93K214 and 93K218. They have their list of "approved" oils. Chevron Delo LE 15w40 and LE 5w40 synthetic is on the list. My Detroit Series 60 engine made both of those oils scream from mercy in just the OEM recommended drain interval of 15,000 miles / 300 hrs. Sheared it out of grade and threw a flag on the UOA's consistently. I now use a Schaeffer 700 15w40, that "meets and exceeds" the Detroit specs, but is not on the approved list, yet at the 25,000 mile / 500 hr OCI's I am doing now with it, over 50% longer, it looks great on the UOA's.

This is why I don't use a dexos1 "approved" oil in my 2013 Silverado. Not that any of them are not good, but because I don't worry about the approved list stuff. The Schaeffer I use in that pickup meets and exceeds the dexos1 standard and returns some good numbers using the OLM as the OCI standard.

I let folks with a swollen paranoia gland worry about "approved" lists and such.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
The Schaeffer I use in that pickup meets and exceeds the dexos1 standard

On a side note, Shaeffer's use of "meets and exceeds" is wishful thinking when it comes to certain specs. For example, Shaeffer claims that their "Supreme 9000 SAE 5W-40 is formulated to meet and exceeds" MB 229.5, yet it has Noack of 11%.

Not that I think it's a bad oil. I just get ticked off when blatantly misleading claims are made.

 

[wemay]

I'm not so sure 'exceeds...' isn't as much a marketing term as 'synthetic' and 'meets'. It's all a matter of trust. Either you trust the product and their 'proprietary' formulations or you don't.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
The Schaeffer I use in that pickup meets and exceeds the dexos1 standard

On a side note, Shaeffer's use of "meets and exceeds" is wishful thinking when it comes to certain specs. For example, Shaeffer claims that their "Supreme 9000 SAE 5W-40 is formulated to meet and exceeds" MB 229.5, yet it has Noack of 11%.

Not that I think it's a bad oil. I just get ticked off when blatantly misleading claims are made.



I though noack was 10% max to meet that spec.

So in this case the company is lying,plain and simple. It would NOT pass the certification with that noack.
I like the company but now I'm wary of using their stuff.
Meets or exceeds is a marketing term.
Certified means exactly that. Considering that we can get certified oils for less that this companies uncertified product why bother.
It's like the certs that m1 0w-40 meets. I don't get why someone would even consider using an uncertified product when this stuff maintains warranty.

 

[fdcg27]

Synpower API SN is as good a choice as any for those applications calling for only an API spec oil.
You don't mention what you intend to use it in, but unless you have an application calling for a more demanding spec, I'd use the Synpower with no worries.
The "meets" and "exceeds" thing is just marketing verbiage for most applications.

 

[Shannow]

Meets or exceeds can have a number of points of view depending on the company and their motivations.

e.g. Mobil 1 0W40 has three claim areas...

Quote:
Mobil 1 0W-40 meets or exceeds the requirements of:
.
Mobil 1 0W-40 has the following builder approvals:
.
According to ExxonMobil, Mobil 1 0W40 is of the following quality:


Two hard claims areas and a fuzzy area, that contains (for example) CF, which has been deregistered as a specification, but is still in a lot of owners' manuals.

Versus
http://www.chief-oil.com/chicasaw-wrx.html
Quote:
Specifications level *
.
.
* Approval not requested


There's a two fold price difference between the two in Oz, and these are the extremes IMO of the way that they base their claims...

I know Penrite has blanket MB approval on some of their lubes provided that they use one of their standard, and approved additive packages (will try to dig up the bulletin somewhere) with a correct base oil.

Castrol Edge 5W30 A3/B4 (an SL oil) claims to meet the testing requirements of SN/SM, but cannot claim them as the phos is too high.

And as Quattro Pete has pointed out, there's people who make claims that simply can't be true on even the most rudimentary review of the claims, be it NOACK, HTHS etc.

It's a case of buyer beware, and purchase the product eyes wide open.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

On a side note, Shaeffer's use of "meets and exceeds" is wishful thinking when it comes to certain specs. For example, Shaeffer claims that their "Supreme 9000 SAE 5W-40 is formulated to meet and exceeds" MB 229.5, yet it has Noack of 11%.

Not that I think it's a bad oil. I just get ticked off when blatantly misleading claims are made.



I guess that would be an issue if I had a MB. I am using what I am in a pre-egr Series 60 in my semi truck and another product in my 2013 Chevy pickup. I guess when I get something European, I might take that into account. The NOACK on the 9000 5w30 meets the dexos1 spec. And the 7000 15w40 blend I use in the semi more than meets the 93K214 Detroit spec that my engine was built under. It meets the 93K218 spec which came later. Whether it meets some obscure Euro spec, I will leave that to other folks who buy Euro.

This is why we have all these choices. Those that fret over details can find what tickles them. Those of us that don't break out in a sweat worrying about specs can take a more cavalier approach. I have never lost an engine in any personal or commercial vehicle, nor had to open it up and do a major replacement of internals. Probably just dumb luck, but not a bad track record since my first vehicle, a 1966 Chevy pickup in 1972.... and almost 5 million documented miles commercial truck use since then and several personal vehicles. Including 10 years living in the interior of Alaska.

 

[d00df00d]

You're missing the point.

If Shaeffer is claiming Supreme 9000 SAE 5W-40 meets or exceeds MB 229.5, they are lying. That's a clear example of why an actual approval is better than taking the company's word for it, which is the opposite of what you said.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
You're missing the point.

If Shaeffer is claiming Supreme 9000 SAE 5W-40 meets or exceeds MB 229.5, they are lying. That's a clear example of why an actual approval is better than taking the company's word for it, which is the opposite of what you said.



And this was the point I was trying to make.

"Suitable for" doesn't cut it.
We can trust oil companies all we want when it comes to claims however real certifications are just that. Real.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
You're missing the point.

If Shaeffer is claiming Supreme 9000 SAE 5W-40 meets or exceeds MB 229.5, they are lying. That's a clear example of why an actual approval is better than taking the company's word for it, which is the opposite of what you said.



And this was the point I was trying to make.

"Suitable for" doesn't cut it.
We can trust oil companies all we want when it comes to claims however real certifications are just that. Real.


Wow well respected Schaeffer's is lying? lol

They do make some good products.

You nailed it with this Clevy: "Suitable for" doesn't cut it.
We can trust oil companies all we want when it comes to claims however real certifications are just that. Real."

At the end of the day its put up or shut up. Show me the certs, not the claims made by the marketing dept. or in house tests.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
You're missing the point.

If Shaeffer is claiming Supreme 9000 SAE 5W-40 meets or exceeds MB 229.5, they are lying. That's a clear example of why an actual approval is better than taking the company's word for it, which is the opposite of what you said.



And this was the point I was trying to make.

"Suitable for" doesn't cut it.
We can trust oil companies all we want when it comes to claims however real certifications are just that. Real.


Wow well respected Schaeffer's is lying? lol

They do make some good products.

You nailed it with this Clevy: "Suitable for" doesn't cut it.
We can trust oil companies all we want when it comes to claims however real certifications are just that. Real."

At the end of the day its put up or shut up. Show me the certs, not the claims made by the marketing dept. or in house tests.


+1

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Whether it meets some obscure Euro spec, I will leave that to other folks who buy Euro.

Obscure Euro spec? Daimler is the third largest automotive company in the world (by sales). There are a lot of engines out there relying on the MB 229.5 spec which is considered an industry benchmark. It is one of the most stringent MFG specs currently in existence. Apparently Shaeffer has no idea what it entails.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
You're missing the point.

If Shaeffer is claiming Supreme 9000 SAE 5W-40 meets or exceeds MB 229.5, they are lying. That's a clear example of why an actual approval is better than taking the company's word for it, which is the opposite of what you said.



And this was the point I was trying to make.

"Suitable for" doesn't cut it.
We can trust oil companies all we want when it comes to claims however real certifications are just that. Real.


I don't fully agree with your statement. Oil companies aren't going to make claims if it were not so. If that were the case then RP, Red Line, and perhaps Amsoil would be out of business, as well as other bigger oil producers. Since most every auto manuf. these days calls for different certs the oil producers are constantly jumping through unnessary hoops.

 

[SHOZ]

My owners manual says use a SL or SM grade oil. The new standard is SN. So if I use an SN oil it exceeds the original speced oil in the owners manual.

What is tricky is the viscosity. 5wxx is speced. Does a 0wxx exceed?

 

[aa1986]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Clevy
And this was the point I was trying to make.

"Suitable for" doesn't cut it.
We can trust oil companies all we want when it comes to claims however real certifications are just that. Real.


I don't fully agree with your statement. Oil companies aren't going to make claims if it were not so. If that were the case then RP, Red Line, and perhaps Amsoil would be out of business, as well as other bigger oil producers. Since most every auto manuf. these days calls for different certs the oil producers are constantly jumping through unnessary hoops.


Yep there's a middle ground here.

Isn't there a Chrysler spec that is very difficult to get "approval" for because it requires a couple of years of testing?

How about Valvoline's "Recommended for Mercon V Applications"? They used to have a licensed product and for whatever reason stopped that.

Do we give Valvoline the benefit of the doubt with this product? Especially when they clear it out at $1 a quart at AZ(!).