DF Sales&Marketing
Oil Tech Moderator
note:
when I first came across this article, I thought it to be rather condemning, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized how far we have come in just a few short years in testing consumer products. As oil specifications change, the blenders have had to react to meet the latest api [American petroleum institute] Specs. It is gratifying to see that the non-compliant ratio has decreased dramatically, but it is also a wake up call for distributors as well as end-users to practice the old saying: “let the buyer beware.”
you can feel safe in placing your trust in swepco brand products.
Please note that the api “sn” specification is coming soon.
in part from lube report
Research by a leading independent testing company shows quality control issues for north American passenger car engine oils last year. Of 250 engine oils that claimed to meet the api sm specification, 16 percent were outside one or more of the specification limits identified on their labels, according to data provided to lube report by the institute of materials.
Forty of the oil samples tested failed some part of the sm specification, said mary herrmann, iom general manager in midland, mich. Of these, 37 products carried the American petroleum institute's "donut" logo, and 22 bore the starburst logo signifying they met the ilsac gf-4 standard as well.
Established by Ted selby and part of savant group, iom has been gathering and testing samples of off-the-shelf engine oils since 1984, when it tested 100 products. It steadily increased the scope of testing to where it now includes 650 annual samples, and gathers products from north america, western europe and the asia-pacific region. It performs over 30 analyses on each sample, then publishes the results in an annual engine oil database available on a subscription basis at iom | engine oil data store.
Iom compares its test results to published specification limits such as provided by api, sae, ilsac, acea and others. "if any of the oils fall outside the specification limits in testing, we retest to confirm data and report both values," herrmann said. "in this way, those reviewing the data can form their own opinions."
she said that it's important to note that "the goal of the iom database is to provide an unbiased tool to help companies in the development of quality lubricants. One way it is used is to identify problem areas, enabling companies to lift the overall quality of oils in the marketplace. "attention to engine oil quality is growing," herrmann said, pointing to iom data that shows a reduction in out-of-spec engine oils, from 33 percent of samples tested in 2005, to 28 percent in 2006, 32 percent in 2007, 21 percent in 2008 and 16 percent in 2009.
"this shows the challenge for api. They also gather samples from the marketplace and do testing, but we're still seeing oils that are off-spec which carry the ilsac and api marks on the labels," she conceded.
"we do agree with Tom that it is important for the label to accurately reflect what is in the bottle. His example of the [product called] U.s. Economy 5-30 is a good case in point, and consumers should be aware of misleading or fraudulent claims," herrmann commented. "iom and Tom also are on common ground on the importance of oil quality monitoring."
lube report's article spurred selby and herrmann to check the broad iom database for its own results on the named products. The data showed these same products to be out of specification and for reasons more significant than those spotlighted by pqia.
"for example, Tom glenn reported that both o'reilly 5w-30 and road-tech 5w-30 failed to meet the specifications for api sm and ilsac gf-4, as the oils were labeled," herrmann noted. "his observation was that the o'reilly 5w-30 [marketed by o'reilly auto parts] Failed the volatility limit of 15 percent loss. However, his web site showed that the test result was only 15.6 percent for noack volatility just barely outside the 15 percent limit and technically within the reproducibility precision range of the astm method.
"the failing specification for road-tech 5w-30 [from salado sales] Was the cold cranking simulator, which was 6610 where the limit is 6600 again just barely out of specification and well within the repeatability and reproducibility margin for each test as per astm methods. Had these samples been tested on another day, or in another lab they could have easily fell within specifications," herrmann explained.
"however, this is not to say that these two oils are not deficient in more meaningful areas," she stressed. "iom testing has revealed that both brands have performed out of specification in other testing."
"the o'reilly brand did not fail noack specifications in our testing, but it did test out of sae j300 specifications for low-temperature properties, herrmann said. Both the road-tech premium samples we tested failed noack volatility specs, even outside of the api expanded ranges. The road-tech sae 5w-30 also failed to meet the j300 minimum of at least 2.9 for high temperature/high shear viscosity at 150 degrees c.
"these results indicate that none of these samples meet the sm/gf-4 standards as claimed on their labels -- for more substantial reasons than presented in the aug. 11 lube report article," herrmann pointed out.
when I first came across this article, I thought it to be rather condemning, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized how far we have come in just a few short years in testing consumer products. As oil specifications change, the blenders have had to react to meet the latest api [American petroleum institute] Specs. It is gratifying to see that the non-compliant ratio has decreased dramatically, but it is also a wake up call for distributors as well as end-users to practice the old saying: “let the buyer beware.”
you can feel safe in placing your trust in swepco brand products.
Please note that the api “sn” specification is coming soon.
in part from lube report
Research by a leading independent testing company shows quality control issues for north American passenger car engine oils last year. Of 250 engine oils that claimed to meet the api sm specification, 16 percent were outside one or more of the specification limits identified on their labels, according to data provided to lube report by the institute of materials.
Forty of the oil samples tested failed some part of the sm specification, said mary herrmann, iom general manager in midland, mich. Of these, 37 products carried the American petroleum institute's "donut" logo, and 22 bore the starburst logo signifying they met the ilsac gf-4 standard as well.
Established by Ted selby and part of savant group, iom has been gathering and testing samples of off-the-shelf engine oils since 1984, when it tested 100 products. It steadily increased the scope of testing to where it now includes 650 annual samples, and gathers products from north america, western europe and the asia-pacific region. It performs over 30 analyses on each sample, then publishes the results in an annual engine oil database available on a subscription basis at iom | engine oil data store.
Iom compares its test results to published specification limits such as provided by api, sae, ilsac, acea and others. "if any of the oils fall outside the specification limits in testing, we retest to confirm data and report both values," herrmann said. "in this way, those reviewing the data can form their own opinions."
she said that it's important to note that "the goal of the iom database is to provide an unbiased tool to help companies in the development of quality lubricants. One way it is used is to identify problem areas, enabling companies to lift the overall quality of oils in the marketplace. "attention to engine oil quality is growing," herrmann said, pointing to iom data that shows a reduction in out-of-spec engine oils, from 33 percent of samples tested in 2005, to 28 percent in 2006, 32 percent in 2007, 21 percent in 2008 and 16 percent in 2009.
"this shows the challenge for api. They also gather samples from the marketplace and do testing, but we're still seeing oils that are off-spec which carry the ilsac and api marks on the labels," she conceded.
"we do agree with Tom that it is important for the label to accurately reflect what is in the bottle. His example of the [product called] U.s. Economy 5-30 is a good case in point, and consumers should be aware of misleading or fraudulent claims," herrmann commented. "iom and Tom also are on common ground on the importance of oil quality monitoring."
lube report's article spurred selby and herrmann to check the broad iom database for its own results on the named products. The data showed these same products to be out of specification and for reasons more significant than those spotlighted by pqia.
"for example, Tom glenn reported that both o'reilly 5w-30 and road-tech 5w-30 failed to meet the specifications for api sm and ilsac gf-4, as the oils were labeled," herrmann noted. "his observation was that the o'reilly 5w-30 [marketed by o'reilly auto parts] Failed the volatility limit of 15 percent loss. However, his web site showed that the test result was only 15.6 percent for noack volatility just barely outside the 15 percent limit and technically within the reproducibility precision range of the astm method.
"the failing specification for road-tech 5w-30 [from salado sales] Was the cold cranking simulator, which was 6610 where the limit is 6600 again just barely out of specification and well within the repeatability and reproducibility margin for each test as per astm methods. Had these samples been tested on another day, or in another lab they could have easily fell within specifications," herrmann explained.
"however, this is not to say that these two oils are not deficient in more meaningful areas," she stressed. "iom testing has revealed that both brands have performed out of specification in other testing."
"the o'reilly brand did not fail noack specifications in our testing, but it did test out of sae j300 specifications for low-temperature properties, herrmann said. Both the road-tech premium samples we tested failed noack volatility specs, even outside of the api expanded ranges. The road-tech sae 5w-30 also failed to meet the j300 minimum of at least 2.9 for high temperature/high shear viscosity at 150 degrees c.
"these results indicate that none of these samples meet the sm/gf-4 standards as claimed on their labels -- for more substantial reasons than presented in the aug. 11 lube report article," herrmann pointed out.