CA SB 778 - Mandates 10K Mi. OCIs on the OIL mfr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
39
Location
510, CA
From PQIANews today...
cry.gif


This better get squashed.

Quote:
Will CA Lead the way with 10K, or is This a Requirement for Another Day?
By Thomas F. Glenn

All too often we hear that what happens in California is a harbinger of what's to come in the rest of the USA. Whether that's true or not, it's now time to take notice of California Senate Bill (SB 778), introduced by California State Senator Allen on February 27, 2015.

If it becomes law, as currently written, this bill will require all passenger car motor oil sold in California to be certified by the oil manufacturer to achieve a minimum useful life of 10,000 miles when used in accordance with the automobile manufacturer's recommendations, and to meet current automotive industry standards. The bill now goes to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. If it is approved and becomes law, it will require all automotive oil sold in the state of California to provide 10,000 miles of safe lubrication by 2018. That's close to doubling oil change intervals. Violation of these provisions would be a crime on and after January 1, 2018.

Although there are many Senate Legislature bills that come and go without becoming law, and this might be one of them, it's important to know that on May 1, 2015, the California Senate Committee approved this bill.

Whereas PQIA does not take a position with regards to this bill, the bill does surface a number of questions PQIA feels industry stakeholders and consumers should be asking and the State of California should address.

The first question is about the objective of the bill. If the objective is to protect consumers from obsolete and harmful motor oils, that's a good thing. There is no doubt that obsolete and potentially engine damaging motor oils are on retail shelves. PQIA sees this every day when it observes quart bottles of API SA, SB, and other obsolete engine oils for sale on shelves. The presence of such motor oils in the market is a concern and PQIA applauds the successful actions that the State of California already has, and continues to take to protect consumers from such products.

But that's not the sole intent of the bill.
It also includes language that speaks to reducing the volume of used motor oil generated in the state. And that too is a good thing. Without question, moving drain intervals from where they currently are (approximately 6,500 miles) to 10k will reduce the volume of used oil generated in the state; but by how much, since most waste oil in the state is already collected and recycled?

Unintended consequences?

Drain intervals are serious business. Motor oil is the life blood of an engine and the "cheapest insurance" one can buy to protect what for many is their second biggest investment; their car(s). That said, it's important to change motor oil as recommended by the car manufacturer. If you don't, the motor oil can become contaminated and deteriorate to a point where it damages an engine by plugging filters and orifices and increases exposure to wear metals and abrasives which in turn cascades into additional engine wear. Further, the oil can become acidic causing corrosion of engine parts, and slip out of grade reducing fuel economy (thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions).

Understanding this, there clearly are questions that should be answered before SB 778 becomes law.

To start, do Senator Allen and backers of this bill know something car manufacturers, oil formulators, performance additive manufactures and others have yet to learn? Do they have data to clearly show that consumers can nearly double their oil change intervals without compromising the performance and durability of their car's engine?

Maybe they do. And if so, PQIA asks Senator Allen and the backers of SB 778 to make such information available to assure the bill has the backs of the consumer in the State of California. Furthermore, even if they have such data, have they checked with lubricant manufacturers to assure they are willing and ready to certify a minimum useful life of 10,000 miles, and that tests exist to prove certification? Because if they don't, consumers in California may have a long way to travel and a lot of fuel to burn getting out of state for an oil change.

Your thoughts on SB 778 are appreciated. Please write to PQIA at [email protected]
 
It could all just be politics.

Start with 10,000 just so you have room to bargain and "compromise" at 5000.

This satisfies the to get "junk" off-brand oil off the market, and still moves the needle from 0 to 5k.
 
Last edited:
Sounds bad, but nothing in this bill would prevent anyone from doing 5K or even 3K drains.
Situations vary, of course, but many mainstream synthetics can do 10K under a range of conditions as can many dual rated HDEOs.
The means and methods to certify an oil for 10K drains are already known, so that's no issue.
Seems to me that the main impact of this bill would be to take inexpensive API compliant conventional oils off of California store shelves.
Too bad for the poor. CARB wants them walking or on public transit anyway.
Look at the number of newer cars for which 10K drains are either recommended or those with IOLMs with which such drain intervals can usually be either reached or exceeded in the moderate climate of CA.
What about the old beaters?
CARB wants these old, high-emissions vehicles off the road anyway, so let 'em die.
In any event, this bill stands as much chance of going anywhere as does the concept of Lake Erie being used to provide water to the arid Southwest.
 
If California's economy was not so huge, I am sure there would be many things "not for sale in California"

It is a shame that what happens there is imposed on the rest of us.
 
Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL
If California's economy was not so huge, I am sure there would be many things "not for sale in California"

It is a shame that what happens there is imposed on the rest of us.
Cali does seem to be a "test bed" for whatever wacky ideas the pols think they can push on everybody else. With almost all oil being recycled & reused, I can't imagine what positive impact this lame-brained carp could possibly have!
 
This bill would actually have some positive effects.
It would end the mindless marketeting of my oil being better than yours and force the blenders to conform to a real standard.
It might also force API to up its game, as well as causing vehicle OEMs to think again about twenty grade oils, for those who find them objectionable, as well as smallish sumps.
It might become illegal for OEMs to sell new vehicles in CA with recommended OCIs of less than 10K and since they'd have to eat the warranty claims, they'd make changes in grade recommendations and sump capacity as required.
The main detriment to this bill would be the end of cheap motor oil in CA.
Nine buck a jug Smitty's?
Forgetaboutit!
 
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL
If California's economy was not so huge, I am sure there would be many things "not for sale in California"

It is a shame that what happens there is imposed on the rest of us.
Cali does seem to be a "test bed" for whatever wacky ideas the pols think they can push on everybody else. With almost all oil being recycled & reused, I can't imagine what positive impact this lame-brained carp could possibly have!



I agree with the idea however I don't feel government should be telling a person when to change their oil.
Since today's syns already offer 10000 mile protection with top tier oils able to go 15000 miles exactly what are they trying to do here. Take conventionals off the shelves?
I don't feel government should have the right to tell a person when to change their oil. With Cali having huge problems with so many other things exactly how is this a prudent expenditure?
Just sayin.
 
Wait a minute.
Are you the same Clevy who posted in another thread that we shouldn't be wasting oil when we're sending our people off to war to fight for it, or was that another Clevy?
Nothing in this bill would impose any expenditures on the CA state treasury.
Rather, it would impose those costs on those who seek to market their products in California.
Yes, this would take all of the cheap conventionals off of California shelves, but since most of us here use synthetics capable of 10K without worries, what do we care?
 
It doesn't stop anyone from changing their oil at 2000 miles. It just means the oil sold there will be of better quality. It also means people could benefit from using oil sold for off road vehicles. or bringing from another state. The oil company's will love the boost in revenue from them having to spend big bucks on oil.
 
If they are going to do any "mandating" mandate no oil changes.


Factory fill, eliminate drain plugs.
 
You go CA!
I just hope in 2017 we all get CA levels of Sulphur in gas, so people who drive DI engines can use Lower SAPS oils and mitigate carbon deposits.
If all states were acting just a little bit like CA, we would have much less environmental issues.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This bill would actually have some positive effects.
It would end the mindless marketeting of my oil being better than yours and force the blenders to conform to a real standard.
It might also force API to up its game, as well as causing vehicle OEMs to think again about twenty grade oils, for those who find them objectionable, as well as smallish sumps.
It might become illegal for OEMs to sell new vehicles in CA with recommended OCIs of less than 10K and since they'd have to eat the warranty claims, they'd make changes in grade recommendations and sump capacity as required.
The main detriment to this bill would be the end of cheap motor oil in CA.
Nine buck a jug Smitty's?
Forgetaboutit!


The blenders already do conform to a real standard: the API.

So a dimbulb legislator from California comes up with a bill that will have dubious benefits, and now the API, who has about 100 years of experience in writing lubricant standards has to conform to this guy's wet dream? Doesn't seem fair to me.
 
Originally Posted By: oaklandish_wrx

From PQIANews today...
cry.gif


This better get squashed.

Quote:
Will CA Lead the way with 10K, or is This a Requirement for Another Day?
By Thomas F. Glenn

All too often we hear that what happens in California is a harbinger of what's to come in the rest of the USA. Whether that's true or not, it's now time to take notice of California Senate Bill (SB 778), introduced by California State Senator Allen on February 27, 2015.

If it becomes law, as currently written, this bill will require all passenger car motor oil sold in California to be certified by the oil manufacturer to achieve a minimum useful life of 10,000 miles when used in accordance with the automobile manufacturer's recommendations, and to meet current automotive industry standards. The bill now goes to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. If it is approved and becomes law, it will require all automotive oil sold in the state of California to provide 10,000 miles of safe lubrication by 2018. That's close to doubling oil change intervals. Violation of these provisions would be a crime on and after January 1, 2018.

Although there are many Senate Legislature bills that come and go without becoming law, and this might be one of them, it's important to know that on May 1, 2015, the California Senate Committee approved this bill.

Whereas PQIA does not take a position with regards to this bill, the bill does surface a number of questions PQIA feels industry stakeholders and consumers should be asking and the State of California should address.

The first question is about the objective of the bill. If the objective is to protect consumers from obsolete and harmful motor oils, that's a good thing. There is no doubt that obsolete and potentially engine damaging motor oils are on retail shelves. PQIA sees this every day when it observes quart bottles of API SA, SB, and other obsolete engine oils for sale on shelves. The presence of such motor oils in the market is a concern and PQIA applauds the successful actions that the State of California already has, and continues to take to protect consumers from such products.

But that's not the sole intent of the bill.
It also includes language that speaks to reducing the volume of used motor oil generated in the state. And that too is a good thing. Without question, moving drain intervals from where they currently are (approximately 6,500 miles) to 10k will reduce the volume of used oil generated in the state; but by how much, since most waste oil in the state is already collected and recycled?

Unintended consequences?

Drain intervals are serious business. Motor oil is the life blood of an engine and the "cheapest insurance" one can buy to protect what for many is their second biggest investment; their car(s). That said, it's important to change motor oil as recommended by the car manufacturer. If you don't, the motor oil can become contaminated and deteriorate to a point where it damages an engine by plugging filters and orifices and increases exposure to wear metals and abrasives which in turn cascades into additional engine wear. Further, the oil can become acidic causing corrosion of engine parts, and slip out of grade reducing fuel economy (thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions).

Understanding this, there clearly are questions that should be answered before SB 778 becomes law.

To start, do Senator Allen and backers of this bill know something car manufacturers, oil formulators, performance additive manufactures and others have yet to learn? Do they have data to clearly show that consumers can nearly double their oil change intervals without compromising the performance and durability of their car's engine?

Maybe they do. And if so, PQIA asks Senator Allen and the backers of SB 778 to make such information available to assure the bill has the backs of the consumer in the State of California. Furthermore, even if they have such data, have they checked with lubricant manufacturers to assure they are willing and ready to certify a minimum useful life of 10,000 miles, and that tests exist to prove certification? Because if they don't, consumers in California may have a long way to travel and a lot of fuel to burn getting out of state for an oil change.

Your thoughts on SB 778 are appreciated. Please write to PQIA at [email protected]



Will this bill really accomplish anything at all? What makes these politicians think that most drivers in California aren't already exceeding 10k-mile change intervals. The vast majority of car owners don't even know how to check the oil.

That big earthquake which will dump California in the Pacific Ocean can't come soon enough.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Wait a minute.
Are you the same Clevy who posted in another thread that we shouldn't be wasting oil when we're sending our people off to war to fight for it, or was that another Clevy?
Nothing in this bill would impose any expenditures on the CA state treasury.
Rather, it would impose those costs on those who seek to market their products in California.
Yes, this would take all of the cheap conventionals off of California shelves, but since most of us here use synthetics capable of 10K without worries, what do we care?



I am the same one and I was trying to make a point that cheap oil isn't cheap

I'm also saying government has better things to do than worry about oil change intervals.
Roast away. I got thick skin.
 
I know that you're well aware that there are standards for oil that go well beyond API requirements.
I also know that you're well aware that many API compliant OTS oils are very capable of 10K drain intervals while many oils that also comply with API requirements aren't.
API is at least somewhat torn between what the OEMs want and what the blenders want and API standards allow for some fairly weak sauce at the low end of the cost spectrum.
If the worst that were to happen were that the really cheap API compliant oils would go away under this bill, that wouldn't be so horrible.
I wish you had quoted the rest of my post, where I wrote that this bill wasn't going anywhere anyway.
Nothing more than grandstanding involved in throwing this bill into the hopper.
Wonder where this state senator comes from?
Maybe the Bay Area, or some other relatively liberal enclave?
 
I wasn't roasting you at all, merely observing what appeared to me to be a conradiction of a previous post.
If oil has costs well beyond what we have to pay for it when we buy it, wouldn't it make sense to minimize those costs by requiring that the stuff be of sufficient quality to be run 10K?
OTOH, many of us run oils that are probably capable of 10K in our cars as we use them for fewer miles.
I know that I do, so shame on me.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Wait a minute.
Are you the same Clevy who posted in another thread that we shouldn't be wasting oil when we're sending our people off to war to fight for it, or was that another Clevy?
Nothing in this bill would impose any expenditures on the CA state treasury.
Rather, it would impose those costs on those who seek to market their products in California.
Yes, this would take all of the cheap conventionals off of California shelves, but since most of us here use synthetics capable of 10K without worries, what do we care?
It would impose costs on the oil blenders which would then be PASSED ON to the consumer. The vendor never pays, the customer does.
 
Many of here are already bearing those costs by buying oils that are easily capable of going 10K in many applications and use patterns.
XOM already states that M1 in either the vanilla or AFE product is a 10K oil and EP is a 15K oil.
Do you suppose that they just pulled those numbers out of a dark place, or do you think that they have done some testing to back them up?
Many consumers ignore vehicle maintenance.
For them, an oil good for 10K would be a very good thing even if it cost them a bit more up front.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This bill would actually have some positive effects.
It would end the mindless marketeting of my oil being better than yours and force the blenders to conform to a real standard.
It might also force API to up its game, as well as causing vehicle OEMs to think again about twenty grade oils, for those who find them objectionable, as well as smallish sumps.
It might become illegal for OEMs to sell new vehicles in CA with recommended OCIs of less than 10K and since they'd have to eat the warranty claims, they'd make changes in grade recommendations and sump capacity as required.
The main detriment to this bill would be the end of cheap motor oil in CA.
Nine buck a jug Smitty's?
Forgetaboutit!


I pretty much agree...however they are doing what politicians do best, confusing their desired outcome with the news sound bites against the Jiffy Lube 3,000 mile OCIs.

First, you could never hold an oil manufacturer to warrant their product for longer than the manufacturer's recommended OCI...there's the chicken and egg juxtapostion.

First you need to legislate that no vehicle sold in the state has less than 10k mile OCIs, nor has "severe service" included in the intervals...then you can hold the oil companies to account...through the API, as they will be pressing to get their specific requirements installed as a part of the next round of approvals tests.

I agree with the rest of your follow ons...
* viscosity reserve will need to be such that 20s are (probably) marginal;
* more margin on thickening in service;
* additive levels will need to be such that volatility and oil consumption need to be addressed to keep catalyst life;
* the "dropping a grade in "xW" in service while still staying in grade will need to be reviewed/tightened/tested harder;
* CAFE will have to reflect the new requirement (which should clearly be based on science balancing economy versus lube oil usage)


And the oils will probably look like they are ACEA specced.

If used oil was dumped on the ground instead of (ultimately, even with recycling) being burned for it's energy, the idea might make a semblance of sense...but if those extra 5 litres of oil saved require another 5 litres of crude to be burned for heat/power, then the rules mean absolutely nothing except being another feel good rule.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top