Wow, old thread with a lot of new posts. Probably best if I split up my replies by user (in order of appearance).
Vehicle manufacturers (OEMs) continue to push the envelope in order to extract more performance and efficiency simultaneously. Naturally, engine lubricants do not escape the scrutiny of engineers.
To this end, OEMs have released their own oil specifications (e.g. BMW LL-04, GM dexos 2, MB 229.51, VW 504.00/507.00, etc) which complement industry specifications (e.g. ACEA C3, API SN, ILSAC GF-5, JASO DL-1, etc). This gives OEMs finer and tighter control over the level of lubricant performance.
Most OEM oil specifications are open to the lubricant industry, so any lubricant manufacturer can formulate their own product and submit it to the OEM for certification and approval. This system allows OEMs to guarantee a certain level of performance.
Thus, the onus of selecting the correct lubricant is transferred from the consumer to the vehicle manufacturer. It means that OEMs should have no valid reason to deny a lubricant-related warranty claim (the consumer need not concern themselves with how the OEM recovers its costs).
It also means selecting the correct product is greatly simplified, because an OEM oil specification quantifies a lubricant's level of performance without the consumer needing to know the physics behind motor oils, nor are they left wondering whether a particular product is suitable.
In principle, it wouldn't matter if the product were formulated using vegetable oil as it base stock - if it has OEM approval, then that product is bound by the same performance guarantees.
I think that is the guiding principle of the OEMs (as I understand it). It's not something I advocate with any great fervor, but I think it's a fairly reasonable method of selecting a suitable product. It's not perfect, but I don't think it has too many downsides.
Note: rather than submitting it to the OEM, a lubricant manufacturer may also decide to evaluate it themselves to see whether it would pass OEM requirements. In this case, lubricant manufacturers tend to use the phrase meets or exceeds if they feel confident enough to recommend the product for a particular application.
For example, the label might state something along the lines of:
Or something to that effect. From a certification (and thus, warranty) perspective, these are distinct from approved products. Since lubricant performance hasn't been verified by Volkswagen, they are not bound to accept warranty claims of this nature. Thus, onus is transferred from the vehicle manufacturer and back to the consumer (who would then have to chase the lubricant manufacturer to recover costs).
It also goes without saying that not all products on the market that would pass OEM certification are ever submitted for OEM approval. I'd imagine it's quite a significant decision in terms of investment and development for some companies, so they'd have think carefully if an OEM certification and approval process is worth the cost.
Vehicle and lubricant manufacturers usually do not release such specific information to the general public.
My preference for 504/507 is guided by the contents in my first post, but 502/505 is fine.
Automotive engine oils are generally considered miscible with each other, irrespective of brand.
Do ensure, however, that the oil used for topping up has a similar performance level to the oil already in the engine.
Given the requirements of 504/507, I would expect the formulation of approved products to be composed with a mix of group III, group III+, group IV and group V base stocks (plus additives). If formulated well, such products offer excellent outcomes in terms of OEM requirements (every base stock has their own pros and cons in regards to performance parameters).
It is not likely an approved 504/507 product would predominately be composed of a single base stock.
Originally posted by AnDyStYLe
View Post
To this end, OEMs have released their own oil specifications (e.g. BMW LL-04, GM dexos 2, MB 229.51, VW 504.00/507.00, etc) which complement industry specifications (e.g. ACEA C3, API SN, ILSAC GF-5, JASO DL-1, etc). This gives OEMs finer and tighter control over the level of lubricant performance.
Most OEM oil specifications are open to the lubricant industry, so any lubricant manufacturer can formulate their own product and submit it to the OEM for certification and approval. This system allows OEMs to guarantee a certain level of performance.
Thus, the onus of selecting the correct lubricant is transferred from the consumer to the vehicle manufacturer. It means that OEMs should have no valid reason to deny a lubricant-related warranty claim (the consumer need not concern themselves with how the OEM recovers its costs).
It also means selecting the correct product is greatly simplified, because an OEM oil specification quantifies a lubricant's level of performance without the consumer needing to know the physics behind motor oils, nor are they left wondering whether a particular product is suitable.
In principle, it wouldn't matter if the product were formulated using vegetable oil as it base stock - if it has OEM approval, then that product is bound by the same performance guarantees.
I think that is the guiding principle of the OEMs (as I understand it). It's not something I advocate with any great fervor, but I think it's a fairly reasonable method of selecting a suitable product. It's not perfect, but I don't think it has too many downsides.
Note: rather than submitting it to the OEM, a lubricant manufacturer may also decide to evaluate it themselves to see whether it would pass OEM requirements. In this case, lubricant manufacturers tend to use the phrase meets or exceeds if they feel confident enough to recommend the product for a particular application.
For example, the label might state something along the lines of:
This product is recommended for, and meets and exceeds the requirements of, VW 504.00/507.00
Or something to that effect. From a certification (and thus, warranty) perspective, these are distinct from approved products. Since lubricant performance hasn't been verified by Volkswagen, they are not bound to accept warranty claims of this nature. Thus, onus is transferred from the vehicle manufacturer and back to the consumer (who would then have to chase the lubricant manufacturer to recover costs).
It also goes without saying that not all products on the market that would pass OEM certification are ever submitted for OEM approval. I'd imagine it's quite a significant decision in terms of investment and development for some companies, so they'd have think carefully if an OEM certification and approval process is worth the cost.
Originally posted by AnDyStYLe
View Post
Originally posted by AnDyStYLe
View Post
Originally posted by AnDyStYLe
View Post
Do ensure, however, that the oil used for topping up has a similar performance level to the oil already in the engine.
Originally posted by AnDyStYLe
View Post
Originally posted by AnDyStYLe
View Post
Originally posted by AnDyStYLe
View Post
It is not likely an approved 504/507 product would predominately be composed of a single base stock.
Comment