Oops. Since 2012 is the latest ACEA revision, the Pennzoil products would still be compliant to the latest spec (though perhaps not the labeling since they list the year).
ACEA A5/B5-12 Meeting Oils?
- Thread starter Ibrahim
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Ibrahim
Thanks SuperCity and yes Quattro Pete, RP had no mention of any ACEA Spec of any sort anywhere on their website! Absolutely ZILCH!
Note that ACEA stuff is self-certified. I'm surprised that Red Line would make a claim, given their HTHS. In any case, there are ACEA RP grades, and they do specify the sequence and the year, too. I believe you'd find that only on their 0w-40 and 5w-40, which should be A3/B3 A3/B4, and last time I checked, they were 02 as well.
Thanks SuperCity and yes Quattro Pete, RP had no mention of any ACEA Spec of any sort anywhere on their website! Absolutely ZILCH!
Note that ACEA stuff is self-certified. I'm surprised that Red Line would make a claim, given their HTHS. In any case, there are ACEA RP grades, and they do specify the sequence and the year, too. I believe you'd find that only on their 0w-40 and 5w-40, which should be A3/B3 A3/B4, and last time I checked, they were 02 as well.
Originally Posted By: Garak
I'm surprised that Red Line would make a claim, given their HTHS.
The one that RedLine is recommending for ACEA A5 applications is their 0w-30 oil which has HT/HS of 3.2 cP. I don't see an issue here.
I'm surprised that Red Line would make a claim, given their HTHS.
The one that RedLine is recommending for ACEA A5 applications is their 0w-30 oil which has HT/HS of 3.2 cP. I don't see an issue here.
I really wish someone would clearly explain the ACEA ratings.
Oils like the Valvoline Syn only say A1 or A5 separately, which seems to indicate they are using the very old specification from 1996-2004.
Mobil and other manufacturers say Ax/Bx ... however they don't specify the year.
Look on page 3 of this PDF:
http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/2012_ACEA_Oil_Sequences.pdf
Oils like the Valvoline Syn only say A1 or A5 separately, which seems to indicate they are using the very old specification from 1996-2004.
Mobil and other manufacturers say Ax/Bx ... however they don't specify the year.
Look on page 3 of this PDF:
http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/2012_ACEA_Oil_Sequences.pdf
Originally Posted By: CELICA_XX
I really wish someone would clearly explain the ACEA ratings.
Oils like the Valvoline Syn only say A1 or A5 separately, which seems to indicate they are using the very old specification from 1996-2004.
Mobil and other manufacturers say Ax/Bx ... however they don't specify the year.
Look on page 3 of this PDF:
http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/2012_ACEA_Oil_Sequences.pdf
Prior to 2004 A1, A2, A3, B3, B4 etc were all independent specifications. From 2004 they were discontinued and replaced with new sequences, A1/B1, A3/B3 etc. These new specifications, e.g "A3/B3" are single specifications and not the same as meeting A3 and B3 from the previous sequence. Hence since 2006 A3, A2 etc should not be claimed as they are as obsolete as API SH etc.
I really wish someone would clearly explain the ACEA ratings.
Oils like the Valvoline Syn only say A1 or A5 separately, which seems to indicate they are using the very old specification from 1996-2004.
Mobil and other manufacturers say Ax/Bx ... however they don't specify the year.
Look on page 3 of this PDF:
http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/2012_ACEA_Oil_Sequences.pdf
Prior to 2004 A1, A2, A3, B3, B4 etc were all independent specifications. From 2004 they were discontinued and replaced with new sequences, A1/B1, A3/B3 etc. These new specifications, e.g "A3/B3" are single specifications and not the same as meeting A3 and B3 from the previous sequence. Hence since 2006 A3, A2 etc should not be claimed as they are as obsolete as API SH etc.
Quaker State is recommended by Hyundat because SHELL pays to be recommended.
Mobil 1 is factory fill for certain MFG...because they pay to be factory fill. Does the oil meet the OEM specs? Sure. But OEM's get a big $$ break to advertise and recommend a brand of oil.
Marketing at it's finest. This is fine but it doesn't mean one is better than the other.
Bottom line is oil endorsements by OEM's mentioning brands rather than just specs is marketing paybacks more than anything else.
Mobil 1 is factory fill for certain MFG...because they pay to be factory fill. Does the oil meet the OEM specs? Sure. But OEM's get a big $$ break to advertise and recommend a brand of oil.
Marketing at it's finest. This is fine but it doesn't mean one is better than the other.
Bottom line is oil endorsements by OEM's mentioning brands rather than just specs is marketing paybacks more than anything else.
Hi,
Originally Posted By: BrianC
Quaker State is recommended by Hyundat because SHELL pays to be recommended.
Mobil 1 is factory fill for certain MFG...because they pay to be factory fill. Does the oil meet the OEM specs? Sure. But OEM's get a big $$ break to advertise and recommend a brand of oil.
Marketing at it's finest. This is fine but it doesn't mean one is better than the other.
Bottom line is oil endorsements by OEM's mentioning brands rather than just specs is marketing paybacks more than anything else.
Not entirely correct!
Most OEMs have a very very close technical development relationship with their Lubricant suppliers. Some new technologies are developed via these technical relationships. Often third party suppliers are involved within these relationships as well!
It is also very common to have more that one FF supplier. This ensures surety of supply and back up
Generalising is quite simple, reality is often somewhat different!
Originally Posted By: BrianC
Quaker State is recommended by Hyundat because SHELL pays to be recommended.
Mobil 1 is factory fill for certain MFG...because they pay to be factory fill. Does the oil meet the OEM specs? Sure. But OEM's get a big $$ break to advertise and recommend a brand of oil.
Marketing at it's finest. This is fine but it doesn't mean one is better than the other.
Bottom line is oil endorsements by OEM's mentioning brands rather than just specs is marketing paybacks more than anything else.
Not entirely correct!
Most OEMs have a very very close technical development relationship with their Lubricant suppliers. Some new technologies are developed via these technical relationships. Often third party suppliers are involved within these relationships as well!
It is also very common to have more that one FF supplier. This ensures surety of supply and back up
Generalising is quite simple, reality is often somewhat different!
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Originally Posted By: BrianC
Quaker State is recommended by Hyundat because SHELL pays to be recommended.
Mobil 1 is factory fill for certain MFG...because they pay to be factory fill. Does the oil meet the OEM specs? Sure. But OEM's get a big $$ break to advertise and recommend a brand of oil.
Marketing at it's finest. This is fine but it doesn't mean one is better than the other.
Bottom line is oil endorsements by OEM's mentioning brands rather than just specs is marketing paybacks more than anything else.
Not entirely correct!
Most OEMs have a very very close technical development relationship with their Lubricant suppliers. Some new technologies are developed via these technical relationships. Often third party suppliers are involved within these relationships as well!
It is also very common to have more that one FF supplier. This ensures surety of supply and back up
Generalising is quite simple, reality is often somewhat different!
I agree lubricant and additive companies work closely with OEM's to develop technologies especially where there is a specific engine/OEM spec. like DEXOS1, HTO-06, or MB229.51.
I'm sure millions are spent developing lubricants/additve packs for these OEM's engines. Being touted a FF is most certainly an acceptable part of the business relationship.
In Hyundai's case there is no specific OEM spec. other than API SM, and GF-4. To clarify my point, Hyundai recommending QS is most likely a marketing arrangement rather than it meeting a specific OEM spec.
Hi,
Originally Posted By: BrianC
Quaker State is recommended by Hyundat because SHELL pays to be recommended.
Mobil 1 is factory fill for certain MFG...because they pay to be factory fill. Does the oil meet the OEM specs? Sure. But OEM's get a big $$ break to advertise and recommend a brand of oil.
Marketing at it's finest. This is fine but it doesn't mean one is better than the other.
Bottom line is oil endorsements by OEM's mentioning brands rather than just specs is marketing paybacks more than anything else.
Not entirely correct!
Most OEMs have a very very close technical development relationship with their Lubricant suppliers. Some new technologies are developed via these technical relationships. Often third party suppliers are involved within these relationships as well!
It is also very common to have more that one FF supplier. This ensures surety of supply and back up
Generalising is quite simple, reality is often somewhat different!
I agree lubricant and additive companies work closely with OEM's to develop technologies especially where there is a specific engine/OEM spec. like DEXOS1, HTO-06, or MB229.51.
I'm sure millions are spent developing lubricants/additve packs for these OEM's engines. Being touted a FF is most certainly an acceptable part of the business relationship.
In Hyundai's case there is no specific OEM spec. other than API SM, and GF-4. To clarify my point, Hyundai recommending QS is most likely a marketing arrangement rather than it meeting a specific OEM spec.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
The one that RedLine is recommending for ACEA A5 applications is their 0w-30 oil which has HT/HS of 3.2 cP. I don't see an issue here.
Yep, I gaffed. I thought every Red Line oil was thick as molasses.
The one that RedLine is recommending for ACEA A5 applications is their 0w-30 oil which has HT/HS of 3.2 cP. I don't see an issue here.
Yep, I gaffed. I thought every Red Line oil was thick as molasses.
- Status
