API standards inadequate?

[larrymoencurly]

The Lubrizol Relative Performance Comparison Tool for passenger car specificationshttps://online.lubrizol.com/relperftool/pc.html allows comparing industry and manufacturer lubrication specifications for protection levels, and it seems to indicate that American Petroleum Institute standards for car motor oil require much less protection than standards set by the European Car Manufacturers Association (ACEA) and almost all auto makers that dominate Europe. Here's a comparison between API's SN Plus standard and GM's Dexos 2:

Does this mean I really should look for oils certified for more than API's standards, even if the vehicle maker says API alone suffices?

 

[Snagglefoot]

What does Lubrizol know about anything? I can make some cool graphs as well. Lubrizol ranks high in stupidity and self righteousness. But thanks for the post and certainly my comments are not aimed at the OP.

But he way, what does Lubrizol say about the SAE ( Society of Automotive Engineers).

 

[parshisa]

So how do you read these charts? The higher the number the better? or is it opposite?

 

[wdn]

The dexos 2 is a ridiculous standard by GM that is for diesel cars of which their are practically none in the United States, but not for General Motors' own Duramax engines: those require API CJ4. Unless you are driving a Chevy in Europe there is no need to buy dexos anything. Also dexos 2 is for the European market.

 

[zeng]

My Asian engines spec'ed sole API SL/SM.
For a long time, I had been pouring only ACEA A3B4 and C3 oils whilst ignoring sole rated API Sx oils , with good results.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted by wdn
The dexos 2 is a ridiculous standard by GM that is for diesel cars of which their are practically none in the United States, but not for General Motors' own Duramax engines: those require API CJ4. Unless you are driving a Chevy in Europe there is no need to buy dexos anything. Also dexos 2 is for the European market.

GM included an LSPI test in dexos2 because they wanted to recommend it for European diesel and gasoline passenger cars across the board, but I see that they have recently begun specifying dexos1 Gen 2 for at least some euro gas cars.
I would also recommend that those in the US who own GM DIT engines should strongly consider using d1G2 oils after the LSPI problems that some of those cars had...look up the Malibu 1.5l turbo LSPI or GM Program #N162071350 for more info. dexos2 would also be fine if you want an oil with a higher HTHS (believe the minimum for d2 is 3.5, d1G2 oils seem to max out at 3.2).

 

[StevieC]

Dexos 1 isn't far off Dexos 2 spec with the exception of soot thickening and a minor decrease in piston deposit control and there are lots of cars in the US requiring Dexos 1.
The API is behind the times (IMO) and it's why a lot of folks here would choose a Dexos 1 Gen 2 oil for their gassers. Fortunately there is lots of choice available that are Dexos 1 Gen 2 capable.

That said if the vehicle doesn't officially require a D1G2 oil it will see more than enough long life on an SN but for the same price you might as well get a D1G2 oil for better wear protection in a synthetic unless you choose to use conventional.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
What does Lubrizol know about anything? I can make some cool graphs as well. Lubrizol ranks high in stupidity and self righteousness. But thanks for the post and certainly my comments are not aimed at the OP.

But he way, what does Lubrizol say about the SAE ( Society of Automotive Engineers).


Scarcasm??

 

[rsalan]

Originally Posted by StevieC
The API is behind the times (IMO) and it's why a lot of folks here would choose a Dexos 1 Gen 2 oil for their gassers. Fortunately there is lots of choice available that are Dexos 1 Gen 2 capable.

That said if the vehicle doesn't officially require a D1G2 oil it will see more than enough long life on an SN but for the same price you might as well get a D1G2 oil for better wear protection in a synthetic unless you choose to use conventional.


Agree 100%

 

[Rand]

What are those numbers, that looks like a marketing graph some slick college grad who just joined the company designed.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by rsalan
Originally Posted by StevieC
The API is behind the times (IMO) and it's why a lot of folks here would choose a Dexos 1 Gen 2 oil for their gassers. Fortunately there is lots of choice available that are Dexos 1 Gen 2 capable.

That said if the vehicle doesn't officially require a D1G2 oil it will see more than enough long life on an SN but for the same price you might as well get a D1G2 oil for better wear protection in a synthetic unless you choose to use conventional.


Agree 100%

Part of the reason I threw the API approval out the window about a decade ago when I started using Signature Series. I heard a lot about not using an API oil and that there would be warranty denials and my engine would implode and how could I put my blind trust in a company etc. etc. etc. Seems that my Santa Fe really saw hard times because of it. I guess the cam wouldn't have snapped if I used an API oil.

Now there is proof that the API is behind the times with D1G2 oils far exceeding the standard and preventing issues that API licensed oils alone in those applications can't.
Oh and don't forget it was oil manufacturers and blenders that figured out LSPI and not the API.

The API is a joke for anything over protecting people from dollar store oils on the shelf. It's also why folks will go to great lengths to find the ACEA oil specification for their vehicles in other countries.

 

[ka9mnx]

I've been told many times, here, that the Lubrizol graphs are not reliable. I seldom look for an API or ILSAC oil. I base my purchase on ACEA specs. But I drive old and tired vehicles!

 

[d00df00d]

Guys, this tool isn't meant for comparing entirely different specs. You could use it compare API SN to API SM, or dexos 1 gen 1 to dexos 1 gen 2, etc. -- but not API to dexos (or API to ACEA, or BMW to Mercedes-Benz, etc.).

Says so right here:

 

[ka9mnx]

Thank you d00df00d. My tongue was wrapped around my ear and I couldn't get that out. But you post did a much better job than I could.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by d00df00d
Guys, this tool isn't meant for comparing entirely different specs. You could use it compare API SN to API SM, or dexos 1 gen 1 to dexos 1 gen 2, etc. -- but not API to dexos (or API to ACEA, or BMW to Mercedes-Benz, etc.).

Says so right here:


Excellent point. I keep forgetting that.

Time to delete thread

 

[OVERKILL]

The API standard is comprised of an extensive series of testing protocols that an oil has to pass in order to carry the designation. These tests set the foundation for an approved lubricant and thus, constitute the bare minimum necessary for many applications. Any oil wearing the API donut will have performed better than the limits in testing, often markedly so.

While many applications, particularly those from Japanese OEM's, call for the simple API approval, others are inclined to provide their own standards utilizing testing protocols that go above and beyond those in the API approval. ACEA, a body comprised of European OEM's, also has their own suite of tests, but that does not stop those same OEM's from having their own separate tests and approvals as well.

The API is not designed to be a benchmark designation but rather ensure that a minimum level of quality is maintained. It provides a layer of safety for Average Joe who walks into a parts store and buys the oil grade he sees on his fill cap.

While the API testing is not as rigorous as some of the OEM protocols, in applications that simply call for that designation, it will yield adequate performance as has been evidenced by the myriad of Japanese vehicles serviced on bulk API lubricants that have accrued significant mileage. And likely the same for Ford Modular and GM LS engines when serviced using the same type of lube.

 

[StevieC]

The way folks talk about API around here you would think they were gods. They aren't. Their minimum standard is too low and there can be far better oils out there whether API licensed or not. The Dexos 1 Gen 2 specification is needed in certain applications but can benefit all applications so why the API wouldn't step up and make that the minimum to eliminate confusion and to benefit even those engines not requiring it, is beyond me.

Especially when price doesn't seem to be a factor (D1G2 oils are no more expensive when compared to SN rated only synthetics) and considering most oils are D1G2 rated now anyway and that it encompasses the SN requirements anyway.

Further why was it the formulators/blenders that figured out that lowering calcium in oils is a fix to safeguard against LSPI and not the API requiring it? We have had GDI/TGDI engines for quite a while now and folks like M1 changed this some time ago yet mum's the word from the API?

I stand they are useless aside from protecting Joe consumer from shelf oils at the dollar store that shouldn't be used in anything.

Their required "minimums" are too low and better options are out there and better specs that supersede theirs at no additional cost.

 

[turnbowm]

API specifications are established by oil company representatives, which is like letting the fox guard the hen house. ACEA specs, on the other hand, are established by representatives from the car manufacturers. This is the primary reason why I use an ACEA oil in my car.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
The way folks talk about API around here you would think they were gods. They aren't.


That seems a tad hyperbolic. I don't recall anybody on this board referring to the API as "godlike". They define a minimum level of oil quality, which is, for many manufacturers, all that is required for their applications.

Originally Posted by StevieC
Their minimum standard is too low and there can be far better oils out there whether API licensed or not. The Dexos 1 Gen 2 specification is needed in certain applications but can benefit all applications so why the API wouldn't step up and make that the minimum to eliminate confusion and to benefit even those engines not requiring it, is beyond me.


Yet Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan...etc disagree with you here. If they felt the standard was too low, they would either require something more extensive like an ACEA designation or, they would develop their own approval. Since they've done neither, we can safely conclude that for many applications, the API standard is sufficient.

The API isn't making Dexos 1 Gen 2 the standard because that's GM's standard. Just like they they don't use Porsche A40 or BMW LL-01.

While it is certainly possible to best the API test requirements with a lubricant that doesn't carry the API rating, it is also quite possible to not meet it. That's one of the purposes of the PQIA.

Originally Posted by StevieC
Especially when price doesn't seem to be a factor (D1G2 oils are no more expensive when compared to SN rated only synthetics) and considering most oils are D1G2 rated now anyway and that it encompasses the SN requirements anyway.


You've answered your own question there. The proliferation of GM vehicles on the road makes it illogical for a major blender to not carry the Dexos approval. Because of this, they are all cost-competitive with each other. On the other hand, AMSOIL charges a premium for their product, yet are not paying the Dexos licensing fee, simply stating that they run the protocol and best the performance metrics

Originally Posted by StevieC
Further why was it the formulators/blenders that figured out that lowering calcium in oils is a fix to safeguard against LSPI and not the API requiring it? We have had GDI/TGDI engines for quite a while now and folks like M1 changed this some time ago yet mum's the word from the API?


Firstly, Toyota was one of the companies that discovered LSPI:
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2014-01-2785/

Secondly, the API standards are slow to evolve and are often based on evolutions and discoveries in OEM testing. So, while LSPI is only now being addressed in SN Plus despite Mobil and OEM's being aware of it for some time prior, we also didn't see Toyota develop an oil standard to deal with it either.

Originally Posted by StevieC
I stand they are useless aside from protecting Joe consumer from shelf oils at the dollar store that shouldn't be used in anything.

Their required "minimums" are too low and better options are out there and better specs that supersede theirs at no additional cost.


Well, as I noted above, the Japanese OEM's don't seem to agree with you.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by turnbowm
API specifications are established by oil company representatives, which is like letting the fox guard the hen house. ACEA specs, on the other hand, are established by representatives from the car manufacturers. This is the primary reason why I use an ACEA oil in my car.


The API is indeed comprised of numerous oil companies and additive companies like Lubrizol, Infineum...etc. Comically, the one OEM I can find on their membership list is Mitsubishi