Schaeffer Oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: geekster
I don't understand what that means. My guess is that it "meets or exceeds" instead of "API Certified"...again I have no idea. Just my general observation. I know it doesn't amount to a hill of beans as far as it working and being a good oil. Can't wait to hear back on your results!


It means it is not API certified oil, you can go the API's website and view all the manufacturers that are authorized to carry the quality marks. Schaeffer's Supreme 9000 5W-30 is not on the list but the 5W-40 and 0W-20 are:

Schaeffer Oil

None of the Schaeffer's oils are dexos licensed either, if that is important to you.
 
kschachn,

As far as I know, the API only locenses their starburst to 20 and 30 weight oils. On the back of 40 and 50 weight oils, there may be a donut, but will probably lack energy conserving and on the front, there will be no Starburst....afaik
 
Right, M1 0W-40 doesn't have the starburst but does have the donut (but is missing the resource conserving designation). However, the grades of Schaeffer's that are not API certified will be missing both the starburst and the donut.

Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
kschachn,

As far as I know, the API only locenses their starburst to 20 and 30 weight oils. On the back of 40 and 50 weight oils, there may be a donut, but will probably lack energy conserving and on the front, there will be no Starburst....afaik
 
Do these specific Schaeffer examples have high phosphorus? It's not like SN/GF-5 is hard to get in a 5w-30, so there is no reason not to certify it GF-5 unless HTHS is too high or SN unless the phosphorus content is too high.
 
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/schaeffersyn.htm

Whether there is any "approved" or "certified" thing going on or not, the PQIA testing verified it meets the API SN and ILSAC GF-5 requirements. Not really sure why Schaeffer would want to play fast and loose with it's meets or exceeds claims, including the dexos1 claim. They have had a very good reputation over the years, so why put that in jeopardy by putting out oils that claim to meet something but don't?
 
TiredTrucker,

maybe they are tired of bench racing.......like Wix did with their poor statistics on oil filtration. It is tough as some companies seem to kind of walk around some issues and distract us with doubletalk, but then there seem to be others on the other side of the realm who just remain good and true without 'playing' the mind/numbers game!
 
Originally Posted By: geekster
I sent an email to Schaeffer just asking about the 5w30 API certification and the very nice lady was going to get back to me. They are very nice at Schaeffer!
01.gif
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/schaeffersyn.htm

Whether there is any "approved" or "certified" thing going on or not, the PQIA testing verified it meets the API SN and ILSAC GF-5 requirements. Not really sure why Schaeffer would want to play fast and loose with it's meets or exceeds claims, including the dexos1 claim. They have had a very good reputation over the years, so why put that in jeopardy by putting out oils that claim to meet something but don't?


No one was claiming they were doing anything other than marketing an uncertified oil. Meeting or exceeding the specs is one thing, all I was pointing out was that they had not obtained API certification - which is shown by the lack of API quality marks on the bottle. For whatever reason they have decided to not submit this particular grade for certification.
 
When I emailed the nice people at Schaeffer I was asking about 5w30 9000 oil and This was the response I just got back from the Schaeffer Technical Department --

“API is a licensing agreement not a certification. Our 701 Supreme 7000 5W-30 is API. The 9003D meets and exceeds the testing for API, it is just that API does not have a base oil read-across for our blend so we cannot use their symbols.”

"That said, the reason our 9003D is not API licensed is an API limitation. Attached is the technical data sheet for Supreme 9000 Full Synthetic 5w-30."


Again this was a very nice lady with a great response time. I really wish other oil companies had this level of customer service. (I know it's a smallish company compared to the big dogs, but it was a good exchange nonetheless) Thumbs up to Schaeffer Oil!!
 
Originally Posted By: geekster
“API is a licensing agreement not a certification. Our 701 Supreme 7000 5W-30 is API. The 9003D meets and exceeds the testing for API, it is just that API does not have a base oil read-across for our blend so we cannot use their symbols.”

"That said, the reason our 9003D is not API licensed is an API limitation. Attached is the technical data sheet for Supreme 9000 Full Synthetic 5w-30."


Okay... I guess they should correct the API since they themselves call it a certification (and a license).

Sounds like a bunch of weasel wording to me.
 
I think it is okay kschachn, it is like finding the typo in a well written document. I remember finding (appx.) one or two in my owner's manual.....and they tend to lawyer up with that kind of literature.
 
Well, that tends to happen when things get as they are with myriads of entities throwing oils out in the market and standards changing almost daily, with each OEM trying to set standards right along with API and such. It has just about become unmanageable by everyone. The only real fall back is that if the oil claims to meet a spec, and then there is an oil related failure, time to warm up the attorney and the Federal trade commission in the bull pen. Not that it will do a lot, but then, about as effective as an oil company that claims to meet the spec then thoroughly backing any claim against their product. A mess no matter how you look at it. All one can really do is stick with a brand that has an extensive track record of reliability if they are going to lose sleep over issues like this.
 
Well that's a good attempt to explain away the lack of actual certifications, at least as good as Schaeffer's explanation. Sure - nothing matters because in the end the certs are worthless in a warranty situation anyway, they are constantly changing, and besides, oil companies say they carry a cert but then fail to back up the product. None of which have any basis in fact do they? Show me where this is the case.

What exactly leads you to call it a "mess"? My cars carry requirements for the motor oils which are all API certs. How is it a "mess" that I then buy an oil that carries that actual designation? How is that especially difficult? Isn't it more difficult for me to try and read the tea leaves of a company's non-certified oil data sheets to see if it is adequate for my needs? How am I supposed to know what is adequate? Isn't that what the certification tells me?

I am not "anti non-certified" oil. I have used Amsoil engine oil in the past and currently use their gear oil in my ECHO. But every time someone defends non-certified oil with the excuses that are posted here (both by the manufacturer and by individuals) that serves to make a nearly ridiculous argument. It borders on the comical to read the excuses.

No, all that one can really do is purchase an oil that has demonstrated it meets the requirements set by the manufacturer. You can make a decision to do otherwise but to say that's the better way is silly.

Bottom line, if the certs are so useless then why does the non-certified oil manufacturer state that they meet or exceed them? Why even mention them at all?

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Well, that tends to happen when things get as they are with myriads of entities throwing oils out in the market and standards changing almost daily, with each OEM trying to set standards right along with API and such. It has just about become unmanageable by everyone. The only real fall back is that if the oil claims to meet a spec, and then there is an oil related failure, time to warm up the attorney and the Federal trade commission in the bull pen. Not that it will do a lot, but then, about as effective as an oil company that claims to meet the spec then thoroughly backing any claim against their product. A mess no matter how you look at it. All one can really do is stick with a brand that has an extensive track record of reliability if they are going to lose sleep over issues like this.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Whether there is any "approved" or "certified" thing going on or not, the PQIA testing verified it meets the API SN and ILSAC GF-5 requirements.

That's only partially true. They don't run every test required for SN/GF-5 certification. My questions are still unanswered, or only addressed in a very fuzzy way. Why is 9003D 5w-30 not SN/GF-5 certified? Its certainly not too thick. It's HTHS is in the ILSAC range. Its phosphorus doesn't look to be too high. I could see not certifying the product if it had a higher HTHS or higher phosphorus, both of which are good marketing points that do run contrary to ILSAC certification.

However, those are clearly not at issue. Yet, the SN/GF-5 certification is not there, and we know this is not a difficult certification to obtain; darn near everyone does it. The only thing I would suggest is that it is a low volume mover for them. Co-ops up here have a synthetic in what would be an ILSAC grade (and with ILSAC properties) that they, for whatever reason, don't certify, either.

And, it's not unmanageable. SN/GF-5 isn't demanding, and SOPUS throws more and more products onto the SN/GF-5 heap all the time, including products that never were. Ashland did the same with MaxLife. All kinds of tiny blenders make SN/GF-5 certified oils.

Every time I hear weasel words about certification, I get my hackles up. I know darned well why Red Line 5w-30 can't be SN/GF-5. It's too thick and its phosphorus is way too high. Red Line makes no bones about that, and it's pretty bleedingly obvious.

I complain when companies rush to make all the ILSAC lubes they possibly can. This isn't much better. When I say there are too many ILSAC rated lubes out there, I don't mean I want to see someone put out a 5w-30 with an HTHS of 3.2 and a phosphorus level of 760 PPM and simply not bother getting the certification. I meant come up with something closer to an A3/B4 5w-30, or something like VR1 or RP HPS.
 
Originally Posted By: LexAtlanta
I installed the oil Saturday. I plan on running a 10,000 mile OCI. It will take me the better part of a year to commute that many miles. I'll post up the Blackstone results when I get them.

Thanks to everyone that replied.


01.gif



The company has been around since 1839,I've got no doubt in MY mind they make quality lubricants. If you guys want to nit-pick on oils like this,you've got way too much time on your hands IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: RazorsEdge
The company has been around since 1839, I've got no doubt in MY mind they make quality lubricants. If you guys want to nit-pick on oils like this,you've got way too much time on your hands IMO.


Well that is what they are hoping for.
 
Originally Posted By: RazorsEdge
If you guys want to nit-pick on oils like this,you've got way too much time on your hands IMO.

This is BITOG. Yes, we're going to nitpick on oils all the time. And, I'm skeptical because a couple of us justifiably hammered them on some dubious HDEO claims some time ago. Therefore, claims they make that are even slightly odd are going to get checked with a fine toothed comb.

This is the second time they've made claims that would pass by the average consumer without a second thought, but when looked at closely by an enthusiast or an expert make zero sense whatsoever.

Is it just me, or is it only these guys that seem to have "superior" base stocks that seem to shear totally out of spec (or shear in a way that isn't believable, if you listen to their customer service) and make a low phosphorus, low HTHS 5w-30 that cannot get ILSAC certification? I understand why there are non-certified lubes out there. But, every time Schaeffer has a non-certified lube or a problem with a data sheet, there is a fishing story from their customer service to go along with it.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: RazorsEdge
If you guys want to nit-pick on oils like this,you've got way too much time on your hands IMO.

This is BITOG. Yes, we're going to nitpick on oils all the time.


This. IMO nit-picking oils is one of the major reasons why this forum is such a valuable resource, please don't ever stop nit-picking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Corneileous
Oil for 2018 Ram 1500 Hemi
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
4K
Corneileous
buster
  • Locked
Schaeffer's 9000 5w30 Supreme
Replies
9
Views
4K
Auto tech
F
  • Locked
Amsoil SS 0W-20 vs Schaeffer’s 0W-20 & filter in Honda 2.0L
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
9K
M56959
MuzzleFlash40
Schaeffer’s vs Big name EP oils
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
MSCH
P
2022 Mustang GT Oil Recommendation
Replies
10
Views
501
StumblingElk
Back
Top