Meeting versus exceeding specs

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
QT - I agree with your comments

TiredTrucker's comments place no credence to the fact that MB have had lubricant specifications dating back for 60 years that I know of. As well they were a founder member of ACEA which of course contain references to MB tests in many areas.

MB (D) are currently also re-evaluating some of the ACEA tests in light of gelling etc in used lubricants under certain cold conditions - no doubt just one of many investigations that are on-going!

ACEA has been much more pro-active since its formation than API had been for several decades beforehand!

 

[userfriendly]

I just used up the last of my 0W40 PetCan Duron in my son's 2013 5.3L 1500 GMC.
Their product hand book states; "built on the same platform as" "suitable for use in"
and other product descriptions, but no current certifications.

What certifications do 0W40 Rotella carry?
Dexos for a new GMC/Chev 5.3L? Not very likely.
Would that stop me from using the oil in the above application?
No. Why? Experience, common sense and UOA's tell me its OK.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: 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.


Probably more so that their targeted market is not primarily owners who have this kind of spec requirement, than the contention they have no idea. Schaeffer primarily targets commercial users. And many of us are not anal impulsive with oil specs we buy and use for engines. And in many cases, our engines alone cost more to replace than most folk's entire automobile. I guess to the point, it this were the issue you are making it out to be, there should be lawsuits flying around regarding it. And Schaeffer should have gone under years ago. If nothing else, the gooberment is always chomping at the bit to take down the "big pockets" and make an example of them. Yet we see none of this. Since they have been around longer than any other N. American oil company, and there is a proven track record in the commercial market, where we tend to stress engines just wee bit harder than the average consumer does, I have no problem with what they claim. For all my needs, they claim to meet the specs and I have found no indication from any of my engines over the years that they don't. Only folks who obsess with details seem to be losing sleep over stuff like this. But then, this is why they migrate to forums like this. I frequent to pick up an occasional snippet of info that will help, and enjoy watching the food fight.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
I guess to the point, it this were the issue you are making it out to be, there should be lawsuits flying around regarding it.

Just because nobody sued them doesn't mean they make a great product. That's somewhat of a low standard to uphold, isn't it?

Anyway, I never said they make a bad product. Actually, if you go back to my first response in this thread, I said just the opposite. My issue is they seem to be throwing around various specs without fully understanding their complexity, which makes me question their expertise. That's all.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: used_0il
I just used up the last of my 0W40 PetCan Duron in my son's 2013 5.3L 1500 GMC.
Their product hand book states; "built on the same platform as" "suitable for use in"
and other product descriptions, but no current certifications.

Petro-Canada is pretty careful about what they list, after all, and make a good distinction between what's approved and what's "suitable." Note that they often relegate a product as "suitable" rather than list a bunch of old specifications as actually "approved."

tig1: It's interesting to note with RP that they claim ACEA specs (with the Euro viscosities of course) but don't claim the VW/Audi/Porsche/BMW/Benz specs.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: 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(!).


Valvoline?
I like the stuff but don't ask oil changer about it.

I'm not trying to trash any lubricant manufacturer. I'm just saying claims are just that,claims,and real certs are just that,real.
Not that I personally care. I use redline all the time and have Amsoil and RP in my stash.
So I use these uncertified products without a second thought.

 

[Shannow]

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.


The Schaeffer point, and Amsoil's 3.4 A3/B4 recommendation indicate that they DO stretch the truth when it comes to claims and recommendations.

Bear in mind that most of these tests come into existence because the OEM in question has found a specific difficulty in service that their test addressed.

A basic "SM" oil, no other certs could (probably) do the job just fine for 3,000 mile OCIs, so a blender could grab an off the shelf SM additive, put "suitable for" on their data sheets, and probably have no problems, even if the HTHS is 0.1 lower than the spec, or NOACK is a little higher.

Certifications and approvals mean that the OEMS concerns ARE addressed in the lube that you purchase.

 

[Whimsey]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
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.


The Schaeffer point, and Amsoil's 3.4 A3/B4 recommendation indicate that they DO stretch the truth when it comes to claims and recommendations.

Bear in mind that most of these tests come into existence because the OEM in question has found a specific difficulty in service that their test addressed.

A basic "SM" oil, no other certs could (probably) do the job just fine for 3,000 mile OCIs, so a blender could grab an off the shelf SM additive, put "suitable for" on their data sheets, and probably have no problems, even if the HTHS is 0.1 lower than the spec, or NOACK is a little higher.

Certifications and approvals mean that the OEMS concerns ARE addressed in the lube that you purchase.


Happy belated birthday

. If I owned a vehicle that required a certified oil I would use it. Luckily I drive Ford's and they are not as strict as other manufactures in their oil requirements. They do have a "meet" requirement specification. Interestingly WalMart's "Synthetic" SuperTech oil does not list as meeting Ford's specifications specifically on their bottle. Only meeting the API SN specs.

Whimsey

 

[TiredTrucker]

On the OEM required spec thing, specifically dexos1 and NOACK thing that some obsess about, Just did my oil change at almost 7000 miles on my 2013 Silverado 5.3L. 10% on OLM. No oil added. "used" 1/4 quart in that time, and of that 8 oz, 6 oz were captured by the PCV oil catch can setup on my engine. So the engine only "used" about 2 oz of oil in a hair under 7000 miles. The Schaeffer 9000 5w30 oil I used claimed dexos1 compliance, though it is not on the "official" list. Seems to meet everything they claim regarding dexos1. Iron was at 31, Chrome at 2, Lead at 0, Tin 3, Aluminum 9, to be expected with LC9 aluminum engine. Just over 23K on engine now. Still 238 on Moly, 823 on Zinc, and 2160 on Calcium on oil drained out.

Not bad for a country pickup that runs up and down dusty gravel roads and hits the off road frequently.

 

[sicko]

Let's not forget the cost associated with these certifications. You have to pay to get the certification, and in some cases you have to pay to maintain them. I once heard that companies which have a Dexos approved certification listed on their bottle, have to pay a fee for every bottle sold. So for some companies with a thin profit margin, it's not financially feasible to include the certification b/c of the lost profits they would have.

It all comes down the bottom line ($$$), and there's minimal cost in doing your own testing and saying your product exceeds a certification.

Personally, I would use an oil that paid for and held a certification during my warranty period. However, after my warranty, I'd use whatever quality oil I preferred to use.

 

[GMorg]

demarpaint wrote: "Show me the certs, not the claims made by the marketing dept. or in house tests."

I agree, but I wish that the same vigor was applied to the claims on aftermarket additives.