Now think of a motor oil container. While it doesnt tell you a great deal about the composition of the oil, it does tell you a great deal about the oil in terms of viscosity, performance (suitability for your particular vehicle), quantity, precautionary statements, coding for sales purposes and a myriad of other valuable and commercial information. Thats a lot to fit on a pair of three-by-four-inch pieces of paper that have to stick on a one-quart plastic bottle.

Recently, the state of California brought to the attention of the oil marketing community some pretty serious issues regarding those labels. At the recent SAE Powertrains, Fuels & Lubricants Meeting in San Diego, Kevin Batchelor and John Mough of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Measurement Standards (DMS), surprised the members of Technical Committees 1 and 3 by expressing concerns about the large number of mislabeled petroleum products in the marketplace. Of course, they were inundated with questions about the problem and the consequences of improper labeling.

To find out more, I contacted Batchelor, who directed me to David Lazier, assistant director of the DMS. Lazier said that the problems at present seem to be mostly related to automatic transmission fluids, and especially the claims being made by marketers for specifications met. In fact, the state has a very detailed set of regulations (http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ dms/programs/petroleum/ petLabelingReq.pdf) which outline the requirements for labeling of petroleum products. They define such things as letter height for brand names, manufacturer identification, etc.

Lazier pointed out that many ATF products (especially top-treat or aftermarket products) contain language such as meets the performance requirements of most OEM ATFs. This is misleading to the consumer, he said, in that it makes a performance claim but does not actually carry an official approval with any OEM. In addition, during the SAE meeting John Mough made the comment that nothing can be added to oil that changes the fluids base physical properties.

If you think that this is strictly a California thing, I can assure you that many states have similar laws on the books and that many of them check products periodically to assure compliance. Florida is similar to California in its enforcement policies and is not at all bashful about requiring marketers to toe the line on labeling requirements. North Carolina regulators actively police petroleum products and are swift to order recalls when defective or mislabeled engine oils are found.

California itself made the news lately (as reported in the online newsletter Lube Report) when Warren Unilube paid $650,000 to settle an unfair business practices case that accused the company of selling mislabeled motor oil, gear oil and other products in the state. The Oct. 27 civil settlement required West Memphis, Ark.-based Warren (which admitted no wrongdoing) to institute a testing program to ensure that the quality and labeling of its products comply with California laws. To compound Warrens problems, the bottles of gear oil did not have a batch number, which is used to trace back suspect product and facilitate recalls if necessary.

During a random product testing program in 2009, the California DMS determined that samples of Warrens Coastal brand gear oil were a different viscosity grade than represented on the label. Investigating other products made by Warren Unilube, DMS found a similar violation in Auto-Zone private-label brand motor oil. Obviously, if a product is mislabeled, it carries the potential for damage to an engine or other lubricated parts of a vehicle.

The whole affair points up some of the problems that can come with incorrect labeling. It also shows some of the non-problems that can haunt a blender. Lets take a look at some of the biggies and what to do about them.

First, there is the question of viscosity grade. SAE J300 is the governing document when it comes to engine oil viscosity. About 20 years ago, engine oil viscosity limits were deemed to be critical as defined by ASTM D3244. The critical limit is the cushion that needs to be applied to any viscosity such that at 95 percent confidence anyone running the test will get a passing result. This simply takes into account the reproducibility of the test procedure, where reproducibility is defined as the difference that two different operators using two different pieces of test equipment might expect when testing the same oil.

Unfortunately, sometimes a blender might not take critical values into account when blending oils. If the oil is right at the limit for a particular viscosity, the odds are pretty good that it might be deemed out-of-spec when tested by someone else, including a regulatory watchdog. It doesnt seem like much, but it can be enough to have the oil pulled from the shelf and turn a non-problem into a problem.

Another big problem is volume. When a container says it holds one quart, it better be that or more. Even though oil is sold by volume, it is actually filled by weight. When a filling line is run, it measures the oil delivered by weight so specific gravity must be calculated and temperature-corrected. Again, there is the issue of variation in test results, but weight is much more precise than other filling and test methods.

An interesting bit of mathematics is in play here. If, for example, you are filling a one-quart container with an oil of specific gravity of 0.88 (about what a typical SAE 10W-30 might be), you would need to make sure to have at least 833 grams of oil in the container. Then, to be sure you are safe from mislabeling, you would overfill by some amount. If you overfill by 5 grams, you will lose about a gallon of oil for every 667 quarts you fill.

Now, that doesnt seem like much – unless you are a major oil marketer filling somewhere around 50 million quarts per year. In that case, you would be giving away something like 75,000 gallons of oil. At the price of oil these days, that would be a pretty steep price to pay for assurance that you meet your label claims. With todays modern filling systems, most major blenders can do better than that; one or two grams is now the target.

Performance claims and specifications met are another area of concern. The API donut and ILSAC starburst are both registered service marks. In order to display them, an oil marketer must gain approval through API, with brand names, test results and other requirements, including a licensing fee.

If a container has one or both of the above marks on it, it is a pretty safe bet that the oil meets the relevant performance claims. Text such as meets the performance requirements of… or Can be used where… have a lot more holes in them, and probably should be carefully vetted before being used on a container label.

The California regulations, by the way, have a specific note regarding obsolete performance categories, and references the SAE J183 standard, Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification (other than Energy Conserving). For motor oils intended for use in gasoline engines, the state requires a statement indicating the vehicle model years or condition of service, as specified in SAE J183. For obsolete classifications, the exact labeling statement recommended in Appendix A of J183 is required. For example, for SA oils the state requires the following statement to be on the label:

CAUTION – THIS OIL IS RATED API SA. IT CONTAINS NO ADDITIVES. IT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR USE IN MOST GASOLINE-POWERED AUTOMOTIVE ENGINES BUILT AFTER 1930. USE IN MODERN ENGINES MAY CAUSE UNSATISFACTORY ENGINE PERFORMANCE OR EQUIPMENT HARM.

ATF claims are a bit cloudier. Standards for General Motors Dexron and Fords Mercon brand fluids have been used and abused for quite awhile now. There are earlier versions of each of these fluids for which requirements overlapped; for example, Dexron III and Mercon can be met with the same product. However, their newest ATF performance requirements cannot be met with a single oil since there are mutually exclusive viscosity limits for Dexron VI and Mercon V. To add to the complexity, there are a number of different foreign vehicle ATF requirements with which to contend.

Visiting the websites for various oil marketers turns up some claims which seem dubious at best. One blender states that its ATF meets Dexron III and Mercon V as well as providing GL-4 level performance. Since API has deemed GL-4 to be obsolete, it would be difficult to prove such claims. Top treatments or mouse milks are in a special class all by themselves. John Moughs caution that nothing may be added which changes the products properties spotlights this issue. Going all the way back to the original STP (polybutene and zinc dithiophosphate), most top treatments will change the engine oils properties. Viscosity will be changed (usually raised) and additive metals or ash content or some other property will be altered. To me the question is whether or not these products have been tested enough to demonstrate actual improvements in performance for the oil to which they are added.

The bottom line is this: Labeling does matter, and what you say, how you say it and the size of the letters are important. Consumers are more wary of claims than ever before, and government agencies are making sure that consumers are getting full value for their dollar. Cynics may grumble that these agencies are merely attempting to help financially stressed states refill their coffers. I cant comment on that, but I can say that the old adage, Say what you mean and mean what you say, is as true as ever before.