I'm speaking of the one available here: Lubrizol Relative Performance Tool
The way I read it, the spider chart literally compares performance among the different oil specifications. That is, ILSAC GF-5 and API SN both have "wear" performance of 3. ACEA A1/B1-10 has a "wear" performance of 5. Should that literally be taken that the ACEA specification allows 3/5ths of the wear that the ILSAC and API specifications do?
Similar question on "sludge". API SN is 1, while ACEA A1/B1-10 is 7.
It appears that even the ACEA A1 spec is significantly more protective of the engine than API SN. Am I reading this correctly?
This kind of goes along with another recent thread, regarding if the performance difference of ACEA A1 over API SN is significant enough so that most people should feel compelled to use it vs. oils only meeting the API specification. But I wanted to separate this thread out from the other one and ask the question about the Lubrizol tool in particular.
The way I read it, the spider chart literally compares performance among the different oil specifications. That is, ILSAC GF-5 and API SN both have "wear" performance of 3. ACEA A1/B1-10 has a "wear" performance of 5. Should that literally be taken that the ACEA specification allows 3/5ths of the wear that the ILSAC and API specifications do?
Similar question on "sludge". API SN is 1, while ACEA A1/B1-10 is 7.
It appears that even the ACEA A1 spec is significantly more protective of the engine than API SN. Am I reading this correctly?
This kind of goes along with another recent thread, regarding if the performance difference of ACEA A1 over API SN is significant enough so that most people should feel compelled to use it vs. oils only meeting the API specification. But I wanted to separate this thread out from the other one and ask the question about the Lubrizol tool in particular.
Last edited by a moderator: