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 www.IOMdata.com.
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.
Herrmann’s comments echoed some of those made by Tom Glenn of the Petroleum Quality Institute of America, reported in last week’s issue (see “Motor Oil Buyers, Beware”).
“We do agree with Tom that it is important for the label to accurately reflect what is in the bottle. His example of the 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 last week 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 following table offers a “snapshot” of O’Reilly and Road-Tech oils from the IOM database, showing the areas of concern regarding meeting API/ILSAC specifications.
| REPORT YEAR | BRAND NAME | SAE VIS GRADE | SERVICE CLASS | API MARK | ILSAC MARK | COMMENTS | SPECS |
| 2009 | O’Reilly | 5W-30 | SM GF4 | YES | YES | CCS at -30C: 7281 cP, Rerun: 7220 cP SBT at -35C: 100 000 cP, Rerun: >100 000 cP | 6600 60 000 |
| 2009 | O’Reilly | 10W-30 | SM GF4 | YES | YES | Gel Index and Gel Temp: 16.1 at -16C, Rerun: 14.9 at -16C | |
| 12.0 | |||||||
| 2009 | Road-Tech Premium | 5W-30 | SM GF4 G5 | YES | YES | HTHS at 150C: 2.56 cP, Rerun 2.74 cP Noack: 19.32%, Rerun 20.70%, GC at 371C: 17.2%, Rerun 16.6% |
2.9 min. 15% max. 10% max. |
| 2009 | Road-Tech Premium | 10W-30 | SM GF4 G5 | YES | YES | Phosphorus: 815 ppm, Rerun: 840 ppm | 800 ppm |
| Noack: 16.32%, Rerun: 17.22% | 15% max. | ||||||
| GC at 371C: 14.4%, Rerun 13.7% | 10% max. |
“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.
“I believe last week’s article could be considered misleading as it appears to send out an alarm, in some cases, where no alarm is warranted, she continued. Our concern is that to ‘cry wolf’ with such questionable failures may cause people to turn a deaf ear to more substantial quality issues.
Im glad to see there are more eyes on this situation, Tom Glenn of PQIA commented yesterday.